I completely agree with Jesse: the loss of functionality in converting character-code records to raster image format is unacceptable and unnecessary.

The issue of which format to use for preserving character-code records (i.e. ISO 10303 for CAD data sets) should really be limited to formats which preserve as much functionality as possible of the character code.

Best regards.

-----------------------------------
Fred Grevin
[log in to unmask]
By BlackBerry

----- Original Message -----
From: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu Apr 03 09:40:55 2008
Subject: Re: [RM] MS OOXML an ISO standard

Natasha, 

With all due respect, why not? The fact that they have not been approved YET
is not necessarily surprising, particularly given that OOXML just became an
ISO standard, but what is better about TIFF or even BMP than XML
particularly for Office-type documents?

And for the archivists out there, some of whom have weighed in on this, What
IS your digital preservation format of choice? I don't want this to devolve
into a "film vs. bits" discussion. Instead, for born-digital documents, if
it isn't an XML-based markup language, what do you recommend be used
instead? Choose any type of documents - but include at least two. In other
words, "TIFF" is a cop-out as so many file formats are not images; moreover,
using TIFF for e.g. CAD drawings causes a loss of more than 90% of the
functionality of the original (layers, views, external references, etc.) and
so the archivist would I presume eschew such an approach. 

Regards, 

Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask] 

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]