Re: Proposal: General Workflow and Filename Extension [via CV 2.0 - Global Resume Community Group]

On 2015-08-23 15:56, W3C Community Development Team wrote:
> As described in the e-mail to the public list, I propose the following general
> workflow and file extension for a CV 2.0.
> Workflow
>
> Proposal: textual file format that can be exported into semantic HTML, SVG, and
> other file formats as well as a specification on how to convert it back
> If the proposal is accepted, these are the follow-up tasks:
>
>  define tags - main part of our specification
>  write code for transformation that can be reused by developers who want to
> implement our specification
>  design example templates in SVG
>  write use cases
>
> Filename Extension
> Similar to .html, .css, .svg, and other formats, I also propose that we use a
> file extension called .cv2 that enables us to distinguish our specified resume
> tags from other text formats. Like HTML, CSS, and other source code, it is
> obviously a text file that is then parsed by software that understands this
> format.
> Proposal: .cv2 as file extension name
> FYI
> According to the charter (section Decision Process), we need a group consensus
> or at least a 2/3 majority vote on this proposal where agreement as well as
> silence implies consensus.
>
> If no objections arrive by August 31st 2015, this proposal is regarded as
> accepted. A small reminder: if you agree, please reply to the public mailing
> list - if all participants agree or disagree before the 31st of August, we can
> already move forward with our work. Thank you!
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> This post sent on CV 2.0 - Global Resume Community Group
>
>
>
> 'Proposal: General Workflow and Filename Extension'
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/cv2/2015/08/23/proposal-general-workflow-and-filename-extension/
>
>
>
> Learn more about the CV 2.0 - Global Resume Community Group:
>
> https://www.w3.org/community/cv2
>
>
>

-1

There are high costs associated to taking a yet-another-format route.

What are the advantages to doing so to the alternatives? What problems 
is the new format solving which can't be accomplished using existing 
formats and available toolchain? Is any of this documented or can be 
quantified?

Having the source format different than the target format also requires 
one one to go back to the source format for all updates. One would have 
to essentially deal with (e.g., publish, convert/export..) multiple 
states and files along the way.

Is there a clear mapping from the source to the target(s), i.e., is all 
the content, presentation, and behavioural level information expected to 
be outlined in the CV2 format and then converted to the SVG and so on? 
What tools are available or expected to be created from this?

Taking the proposed CV2 text format is too complex and will face severe 
challenges for adoption in my opinion.

I strongly suggest to work with HTML+RDFa+SVG+CSS+JS for the primary 
authoring toolbox. If SVG is the desired "view" for it, work on 
authoring tools to achieve that better.

 From my POV, I think what this CG should focus on:

* A CV/Resume vocabulary extension for schema.org (or at least RDF based).
* Authoring tools to construct infovis-like resumes using 
HTML+RDFa+SVG+CSS+JS.

Just my two cents.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Sunday, 23 August 2015 14:42:13 UTC