All - Thought I'd de-cloak from lurk mode long enough to canvas opinion or archival formats (again). I'm considering this from a digital media (not paper to digital) at the moment. Considerations for paper and software are similar though. There are many dozen image formats for diskettes and disk drives, just as there are for photographic and paper images. My thought was to avoid the problem by using a non-format. Stay with me on this... basically persist the data in as raw a format as possible, with an externalised, self defining descriptor, all wrapped up in an open archive format to form a single file. The concept being that the long term storage format is just a not the viewer format. You maintain a converter from the storage format to a current viewer format, but you don't actually store the data in the current viewer format. By current viewer, I mean PhotoShop, Acrobat, etc. Here's the basic file layout: xxxxx.zip : raw.bin (a simple sequential byte copy) descriptor.xml ( instructions on how to carve it into sectors, raster lines etc.) *Don't get hung up on *.zip... I know LZW is encumbered... this is just an example. The actual scan output is the raw.bin. It no formatting data at all. The descriptor tells you everything you recorded about the file at scan time which helps you to interpret the data stream later. That could be ratster format, page markers, etc. This should work for a broad range of data for an already digital data format. The problem I have with this approach is where a scan doesn't result in actual digital information. Yeah, ok it's all bytes on disk, but what I mean is sampled data versus byte for byte representation. Paper tape and punch cards are examples of data which is unambiguous in a digital sense, because it contains a fixed encoding stream, with a self evident data word boundary. A card is one character a line, tape one character per linear unit. All you have to do is store the whole thing as a byte encoded stream, and put the metadata in the descriptor (card 1, card 2, etc...). Where this falls down is say for instance, an MFM diskette scanned with a sampling board like a CatWesel. In this case the data returned is basically analogous to sampled analog signals. It's clock ticks between fluctuations. The fluctuations are binary. But their interpretation is based on sampling rate and media rotation. You can sample at higher and higher rates and get more sampling data, if you are working blind. This is less of a problem if you know something about the subject. But otherwise discretion has to be applied to interpret what you've captured. That worries me. I like deterministic outcomes, especially in archival work. You could force an 8 bit boundary on the resulting data, but things like sector headers are sometimes deliberately encoded in fluctuation sequences that don't conform to rest the data encoding. That throws your interpretation of the data off, unless you already know what the sector header formats look like. The only way I can think of to follow the inside-out / no proprietary archival format approach you basically don't transpose to bytes at all, but leave it as sampled fluctuations... not even bits. As with other viewer approaches, you apply the transposition only when you attempt to view the data, not when you store it for archival purposes. Thoughts? Third example... a booked scanned becomes a byte stream of bit map data stored in the raw.bin. The descriptor then encodes the page transitions and raster format, plus discretionary metadata. I like that much better than PDF, TIFF and JFIF. I realise these formats are unlikely to die out, but I like the idea of a common archival format which is self documenting better. I'd be interested in hearing people's (non-flame) comments. Regards, Colin Eby