--- On Sun, 6/14/09, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> steve rice wrote:
> >> Personally I find writing directly in portable
> HTML (and organizing my site as a few large HTML docs
> instead of many
> >> small ones) is easier for me; one can open my HTML
> docs in a
> >> word processor and save as PDF after adjusting the
> type size
> >> and margins to suit your preferences, if you
> want.
> >> 
> > I completely agree. That's why when I encounter a lot
> of tiny
> > files, I sometimes bother to combine them, as I did
> with James
> > Chandler's version of _An International Language_:
> it's better
> > as a single file. (Among other things, I can search
> it
> > properly.) PDF is only useful for extremely complex
> documents
> > or making the contents tamper-resistant.
> PDF's really aren't that tamper-resistant.  PDF
> editors do exist.  

"Tamper-resistant" is not "tamper-proof." PDF makes tampering harder than plain html, and most PDF editors respect passwords and other protections.

I'll agree about having a single
> large file is ideal for downloading, but for web
> presentation a bunch of small HTML pages linked together
> makes things easier to navigate especially if someone is
> still on a low-bandwidth connection.  

I'm still on dial-up, and I prefer a single large html file over paging through several files, unless the page is over a meg or so, in which case it should be zipped anyway. But PDFs are larger anyway and take longer to load.

One of nice
> things about PDF's is that they not only retain fonts and
> formatting but can also be set up with a navigation bar so
> they are easily browsed giving the best of all worlds. 
> Web browsers don't really make very good readers.  

But it's not difficult to save html as PDF, either.