PDF vs. HTML? Is one "better" for you than another, and why, please? I'm looking at possibly going pure PDF on future uploads, and your input will help decide that matter.
Pdf every time for me - so long as the format has been properly arranged in the first place, it is much more readable than HTML. The integration of images etc. is better, and there are a lot more tools available to easily manipulate the document yourself if required.
I don't find the difference as striking as the others, but I do sort of like the PDF version over HTML for ease of reading. Seems more straight forward. Go for which ever you yourself prefer I suppose OP, but the votes are probably going to come down on PDF mostly.
To refine the OP (if that's not narcissistic ): I just finished three volumes of the Indian Armed Forces (the Burma volumes) and they xlated nicely into HTML. Then I hit: REGISTER of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps JULY 1, 1945 NAV PERS 15,018 972 pages of tables. Good information, hellish to xlate to HTML and with the high probability of translation errors built in. So my question would be, is it really important to have the files in HTML? (And I'm getting a reading on the reply already, thank you.)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but in PDF, you are seeing the original document, not a transposed version (that may contain errors) as in HTML. So as history source material, PDF would always be better than HTML. Greg C.
I prefer PDF when the document is considered a "source"; HTML documents are better suited as a synopsis.
I do as well, but we have an alternative, hybrid as it were, that we're considering. I'll be looking for volunteers to give us some feedback when we have a sample ready.
Volunteer has such negative conotations, I much prefer Testee. I would be more than happy to provide you with my opinion of the finished product.
Well what good is having a "T" next to your name then? "Trustee- Testee" what ev. Like so many things we run into, on this forum, context is everything.