Raymond Toy <t...@rtp.ericsson.se> writes: > >>>>> "Kent" == Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> writes:
> Kent> fact. What is really needed to counter this is not debate > Kent> but first hand subjectmatter. I've done what I can, when > Kent> I can afford the time, to take my own paper records and > Kent> put them online. I've seen others do likewise. But there > Kent> is still much to do, and anyone else with personal sets of > Kent> hardcopy should do what they can to preserve the > Kent> historical record into electronic media for the sake of > Kent> History.
> Even that can be hard. Technology is changing so fast that electronic > media of today has a good chance not working in the relatively near > future. A serious problem that I think people are looking at.
I am willing to trust that anything stored in today's documented media (e.g., HTML or GIF or PostScript/PDF) will be accessible to future historians.
Also, even if they lose the specs, reverse engineering HTML won't be that difficult, which is why it's my medium of choice.
And, for that matter, web crawlers exhaustively archiving todays' internet for posterity have probably also accidentally archived some bootlegged copies of the programs necessary to read PDF, etc. ;)
Which is not to say that creating enduring formats don't have a purpose, but I really think HTML is, accidentally or not, a pretty good one.