Talk:Choosing The Right File Format

Microsoft's XPS format
Someone added: "Microsoft has introduced a new PDF-like fixed document format named XPS, based on XML. This format has already gained the support of many industry heavyweights and is poised to become a great format for archival purposes." Appart from not being NPOV the comparison with PDF is not quite correct. I'll look at that after the move. --DuLithgow 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

HTML vs. RTF
I'm surprised to see no mention of HTML. Is RTF significantly superior to HTML? --DavidCary 02:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

See this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_document_markup_languages

Good point, I think I'll redo that bit. The danger is that people using MSOffice will think that saving it as html is a good thing. In that specific case RTF is better. -- Duncan (not signed in)

JPEG vs. PNG
I'd like to point out that JPEGs saved at level 12 (highest quality) are, in fact, lossless. They are sometimes also smaller (though not always) than an equivalent PNG image, and thus may be preferable for use (especially considering their universal use; not all applications can read PNG.)

No. JPEGs are always lossy. Have you ever compared images before and after JPEG compression? The JPEG FAQ (Last-modified: 28 March 1999) says


 * "cranking a regular JPEG implementation up to its maximum quality setting *does not* get you lossless storage; even at the highest possible quality setting, baseline JPEG is lossy because it is subject to roundoff errors in various calculations. Roundoff errors alone are nearly always too small to be seen, but they will accumulate if you put the image through multiple cycles of compression (see section 10)."

While I've heard that the Joint Photographic Experts Group are working on lossless compression of images, my understanding is that far more applications understand PNG than any kind of "lossless JPEG". ''If this situation has changed since 1999, I will be very suprised -- please tell me more. --DavidCary 02:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)''


 * The JPEG2000 standard allows for lossless compression, but it is a) proprietary (that is, licenses need to be purchased for software implementing the standard) and b) not highly deployed or well supported in software due to a) ...
 * The thing about standards is... there's so many of them to choose from.
 * -- Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

patents
While patents may be a problem now, they are certainly no special risk for long-term data storage. If anything, that eliminates the risk. The patent will expire. AlbertCahalan 16:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts (Encryption, DRM, Spreadsheets, multiple formats)
Perhaps the dangers of DRM and encryption should be mentioned? I'd hate to see someone archive something in, say, an encrypted odf and forget the key... Also, why are databases and spreadsheets listed together? Why isn't it mentioned that it may be wise to store multiple copies? For example, keeping an ODF and an ASCII text file of the same thing, or a vector graphic and then a rasterized copy.


 * Please sign you comments in future. Someone is very welcome to write about DRM. Not my field. Password issues are valid and should be included, would anyone like to add a note where appropriate? Yes, people should keep multiple copies, but that's for a backup article to say, maybe we could mention it though. ODF files are ASCII compliant, though I have questions about the uncompression issues in the future - any thoughts out there? --DuLithgow 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This can't be right
The page recommends a solution (ODT) which it does not define or reference.Ahgardner (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)