My goal here is mostly to read articles, but sometimes I save the website for archive purposes. Which one do you think I should choose?(Sorry for my bad English I am not a native speaker)

  • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    3 months ago

    In my experience, I can never fully archive HTML properly. There’s so many associated files to go along with it now a days that I usually end up with a broken page or stuff missing. PDF at least gives you a self contained snapshot.

  • Davel23@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s an addon for Firefox called SingleFile which lets you save a page as an HTML file but also includes all images, formatting, etc. It might be available for other browsers, but I’m not sure.

  • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 months ago

    Saving the website will be smaller so if you’re doing a lot of archiving that’ll save space. Also probably easier to find HTML renderers on weird platforms than PDF. Full disclosure I hate Adobe so I’m not unbiased, but HTML still has advantages.

    • DenizEfeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well thank you for answering my question but I think there is a thing called odt if Adobe is problem for you I think you can convert your pdf’s into odt but overall thank you

      • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah I have lots of options for my own use, but I hate adobe because they’ve infected every workforce I’ve been anywhere near with the idea that PDFs are gods will. And I’m commonly the one that has to interpret gods will for the congregation.

  • Tom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    If you just want to save the text to read later, go with HTML.

    If you want to archive it with graphical elements and embedded images, PDF is the better choice.

  • morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’d say html. Websites don’t translate well to pdf and and pdf is a hellish format that cannot be modified after the fact

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    If I only plan to read or view the file myself, I save PDF. If I need formated text extraction, save the page.

  • Alvaro@social.graves.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    @DenizEfe@lemm.ee that is a good question! I would say as HTML because it is easier to do post processing (e.g., extract), but you will probably lose the layout (libraries and css will go 404, etc). If the amount is not too large, why not both?

  • Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    PDF would likely be more useful unless you take extra care with copying the website using a crawler.

  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t use it and inthibibthere might be some privacy concerns but I think Firefox bought pocket. It’s useful for just this purpose. You bookmark (pocket) a webpage for later reading and it syncs it to your devices in a readable format.

    However, to more directly answer your question, it will completely depend on your use csse. Either should work but pdf will be more reliable.

  • mustbe3to20signs@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    On desktop all browsers should be able to save Websites as HTML or PDF. Firefox on Android also offers “printing” sites to PDF.