Re: Annotation Serializations

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 20 Jan 2014, at 04:30 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> > I actually do think there's a case to be made for a <note> element, with
> an API, to be used as the root with a specific content model transformable
> into the OA data model.
> > For example, I could see a <note> element being used for footnotes
> (similar to how Wikipedia treats them); in that case, there would be two
> different anchoring schemes available:
>
> O.k. What I was reacting is to have some sort of a mapping of OA into the
> generic HTML world. The issue would be (and it is the RDFa experience
> talking) that, though the fundamental approach would look simple, mapping
> to the huge amount of different combinations of HTML elements, having a
> clear spec to all different setups is what complicates things big time.
>
> The approach of a dedicated element (say, <note>) with a very specific and
> not-too-complex content model may work. Of course, the problem may be how
> to define that content model; after all, a user might expect to use the
> full power of the HTML content elements within a <note>, so much of the
> definition should also specify what happens if that is done (essentially,
> what is ignored). But we can probably make the content model fairly
> restrictive, which may make things manageable (see also my comment below).
> I am still a bit worried about the hidden complexities, but it may be worth
> a try.
>

+1 to all of the above.

If there is an opportunity to introduce annotation specific elements into
HTML, such as <note>, then we should actively pursue that direction once we
have the formal WG status (and hence the clout to even consider such a
route!)

Rob