Subject: PDF vs. HTML
From: "Higgins, Lisa" <LHiggins -at- carrieraccess -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:08:11 -0600

> Printing an entire web site (as I'll refer to the compilation of HTML
> that comprise the book) is not practical.

Actually, W3C's browser, Amaya, has a function called Make Book that lets
you compile and print a book from links.

Also, if you use cascading stylesheets, you can create a stylesheet
specifically designed for printed material.

I'm not saying that this makes HTML an ideal print medium. Far from it. But
if your primary goal is to have online documents that can be printed on rare
occasions, it's definitely workable for that.

> Is there a place for HTML. Of course. Is HTML a better format
> than PDF for
> making a printed book on-line. Absolutely not.

If that's the goal, you're right. But what I would ask is: Why? It seems a
little customer-hostile to provide a 'print' book and then say, "Oh, yeah,
you buy the paper and the toner and print it yourself." I realize this isn't
the only possible scenario for this, but it's one I've seen a few times.

I like PDFs for review copies, white papers, backups to printed manuals, and
so forth. For real hypertext, it's best to go with a hypertext medium, like


Previous by Author: RE: HTML vs PDF for online manuals
Next by Author: RE: HTML vs PDF for online manuals
Previous by Thread: Re: Can't do that in Word, eh?
Next by Thread: Re: PDF vs. HTML

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads