As I am new at this blogging thing, I inadvertently had comments turned on for my first few posts. I have since turned them off. I am hopeful that people will email me with their comments. If you have feedback that you would like other people to be able to see and contribute to, we have the Autodesk discussion groups for that purpose.
For the brief period where comments were active, blog reader Brian Duguid's comments included: "...While collaboration and the design process is important, it actually takes second place against considerations of file security, archiving, etc. Although there is money to be made by making the design process more efficient, the truth is that there is far more money to be lost if our copyright is breached and data used or modified by others; if we are unable to recover files from archives 10 years old; if our documents are transmitted successfully but misread by the recipient (e.g. due to plotting inaccuracies)..."
With regard to DWF security, there are several articles in Shaan Hurley's Between the Lines blog as in http://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/2005/02/dwf_security.html. DWF is actually suited to plotting and archiving. As with PDF, the ability to view an archived file 100 years from now relies upon the technology being available or a path that has migrated the data along the way. The items that distinguish DWF from PDF are additional in that they go beyond the paper. DWF is still suited to paper. DWF is considered a print-ready format. I recognize that this is a relative term.
- DWF is certainly print ready compared to original AutoCAD drawings. A DWF file has an image that is already positioned on a virtual piece of paper. The margins are set. There are no missing XREFs. There are no color remappings or style tables to apply.
- DWF is less print ready than a Tiff; however, try zooming a Tiff. You get fuzzy pixels.
DWF is easy to use. Even with the advantages that it offers to go beyond the paper, you just print what you see and that's what you get.