"nate" <schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu> on 07/12/99 07:43:15 PM
Please respond to xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
Subject: Re: pdf vs txt or html
I agree with Martin that pdf has its own set of problems. A few years ago,
as now probally, there was confusion of the "fair use" clause in reference
to the online world. In the process of playing it safe pdf was seen as the
closest to the practice of making copies, binders etc and giving them to
students. PDF like binders were seen more as an act of copying than
publishing. Although binders were sold at "copy" shops it was not seen as
publishing perse.
Putting up a document on the web in html or text would seem more close to
publishing than copying. While I think Martin is correct that in itself
pdf probally is not any less authentic than text, pdf at least at my
university has historically been equated more with copying than publishing.
While an author can give xcma permission to publish in journal form or on
its webpage, I don't suppose we can go about publishing without the
author's intent such as publishing *Cultural Psychology* on the web. I do
suppose we may be able to legitimize, because of being an educational
community, putting a "copy" of a chapter or two in pdf format without the
authors/owners permission.
I very rarely view pdf files on the web itself, but download them for
future viewing as I would do with a paper copy. PDF is not designed,
expecially larger documents, to be an alternative to .html but rather to a
paper "copy". While it is definately used for publishing just like html,
in the university setting as in electronic reserves (as apposed to paper
reserves) it has become to be seen as copying rather than publishing.
Copying vs publishing seems to be an issue worth considering if we aim to
make Leontiev's work available to the collective. With pdf it would seem
legally one is safely in the domain of copying, but I am not as confident
one is safely there in an html or text format.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Ryder <mryder who-is-at carbon.cudenver.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 3:59 PM
Subject: pdf vs txt or html
> The last thing I want to do is engage in a tussle about text
> formatting preferences, but...
>
> - PDF files do not open their contents to web search engines.
> - PDF files do not provide internal anchors for external hyperlinks.
> - PDF files are huge and slow to download.
> - PDF readers impose system requirements that effectively exclude
> users with older and smaller systems.
>
> - Regarding authenticity, it is unclear how a simple text file
> can be un-authentic.
> - Regarding the likelyhood of editing the original, isn't that a
> function of server security?
>
> My 2c
> Martin R.
>
> Nate writes:
>
> > Personally, I have been using pdf more and more to get copies of
> > chapters, articles etc into digital format. I think it is less time
> > consuming than converting to html and offers a degree of autheticity
> > that html can't. In contrast to photocopying one only has to copy the
> > document once although it may take a little longer.
>
> David writes:
>
> > I've done both and agree with Nate that pdf is closer to the original -
> > less likely to be edited.
>
>
>
>