We know Web content (HTML) management is centralized whereas PDF is not, and this centralization makes it a lot harder for folks who use server-based web-content systems (CMS, wikis, etc) to create inaccessible content.
Web sites often provide information in PDF when it is inappropriate. Here are some of the difficulties that causes.
First, though, I'll note that PDF does have some benefits:
Some other difference:First, though, I'll note that PDF does have some benefits:
- PDF is good when the file is destined for printing, and the precise printed page layout is important, or when there are images which should be rendered at high resolution on the printed page.
- PDF is useful for taking fancy newsletters which are designed for the printed page, and making them available online without much hassle.
- PDF format is currently useful for math and special symbols, until MathML and better internationalization is widely supported for HTML.
Also someone said that it’s very hard to compare HTML and PDF in this way. PDF is used precisely because one is NOT dependent on a web-content professional and CMS (locked-down or otherwise) to create it. Nor is one subject to the vagaries of connection, or browser.
Quite apart from the fact that it can be authored offline, a PDF can include arbitrary pages, scans, diagrams, etc. HTML is only capable of addressing a tiny portion of the range of everyday document types that fall within the scope of PDF.
Sure, if it’s a question of what format is best for squirting some paras and headings on a web-site, then HTML is usually entirely adequate. Those are the easy cases, no problem. But what of the many many harder cases?
No comments:
Post a Comment