Online CPD

[Christian K. Wedemeyer]

Dear Mark,

Thanks for the information. That would seem to be a cogent reason if in fact the plan is borne out 
(just the other day, I was looking for a word that was just beyond the most recent fascicles and 
wishing things had gotten farther along, so I can't help but be sympathetic to the motivation). If, 
in fact, the digital format streamlines work and allows it to proceed at a faster pace, that is all to 
the good.

I no doubt should have hesitated before leaping to my own interpretation of the cause of the 
change (and simultaneously broadcasting my rather strong distaste for the Danish authorities--
my apologies if, in overstating my case, I offended anyone!).

Still, luddite though it may sound, paper has shown itself to be the single-most successful 
technology in transmitting human knowledge. The CPD is an important monument of scholarship 
which should be preserved in a durable form. For right or wrong, I am not sanguine about the 
long-term success of digital technology (measured, that is, in centuries, not decades) and would 
be happier if the CPD could be published "old style" at some point. Perhaps money could be found 
to publish one or two big installments, as digital work progresses?

Thanks again for clarifying things,

Christian

P.S. Any idea what happened to cause the "destruction" of fascicle 3.7?


On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:43:10 +1000, Mark Allon <mark.allon at ARTS.USYD.EDU.AU> wrote:

>In his original posting on the Palistudy list, Ole Pind commented that
>it would take 300 to 400 years to complete the CPD "like in the old
>days." This could be greatly reduced through concentrating recourses on
>the digital format.