Thread: RTF and TXT compared to LRF?
View Single Post
Old 04-14-2007, 02:13 PM   #16
RWood
Technogeezer
RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.RWood ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
RWood's Avatar
 
Posts: 7,233
Karma: 1601464
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Device: Sony PRS-500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Agreed. LRF for reading, but an "open" format such as RTF or HTML for long-term storage. I don't know what I'll be reading my books on in 10 years time, but I can pretty sure I'll be able to convert any of these formats to whatever it may be. Unfortunately I can't say that about LRF!
Too true Harry, too true. Once upon a time it was thought that any data stored in the DBF format (used by dBase, FoxBASE, Clipper, etc.) would be safe and readable. Now I need converters to load that data even into Excel.

The moral of the story is to keep your library as device and program independent as possible. If this means that you have to go back in five years and convert it all to XYZ standard, then do it. Just as we have migrated our data from 5.25" floppies to 3.5" floppies, to tape backups, to 100 Meg Zip disks, to CDs, to DVDs; we also have to ensure that the form and format of that data is also usable.
RWood is offline   Reply With Quote