Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

On 10/06/2014 09:28 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>>> It does MathML I think, which is then rendered client side. Or you could
>>> drop math-mode straight through and render client side with mathjax.
>>
>> Well, somehow png files are being produced for some math, which is a failure.
>
> Yeah, you have to tell it to do mathml. The problem is that older
> versions of the browsers don't render mathml, and image rendering was
> the only option.

Well, then someone is going to have to tell people how to do this.  What I saw 
for htlatex was that it just did the right thing.

>> I don't know what the way to do this right would be, I just know that the
>>
>> There are many cases where line breaks and indentation are important for
>> understanding.  Getting this sort of presentation right in latex is a pain for
>> starters, but when it has been done, having the htlatex toolchain mess it up
>> is a failure.
>
> Indeed. I believe that there are plans in future versions of HTML to
> introduce a "pre" tag which prefers indentation and line breaks.
>
>
>>> Which gets us back to the chicken and egg situation. I would probably do
>>> this; but, at the moment, ESWC and ISWC won't let me submit it. So, I'll
>>> end up with the PDF output anyway.
>>
>> Well, I'm with ESWC and ISWC here.  The review process should be designed to
>> make reviewing easy for reviewers.
>
> I *only* use PDF when reviewing. I never use it for viewing anything
> else. I only use it for reviewing since I am forced to.
>
> Experiences differ, so I find this a far from compelling argument.

It may not be a compelling argument when choosing between two new 
alternatives, but it is much more compelling argument against change.

>>> This is why it is important that web conferences allow HTML, which is
>>> where the argument started.
>
>> Why?  What are the benefits of HTML reviewing, right now?  What are the
>> benefits of HTML publishing, right now?
>
> Well, we've been through this before, so I'll not repeat myself.
>
> Phil
>

Yes, and I haven't seen any benefits using the current setup.

peter

Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 16:58:29 UTC