- From: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 20:06:17 +0200
- To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- CC: <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
Hi Sarven, To me having such minimal set means feasibility of developing the (various, hopefully) implementation of tools using SH-CG, and facilitating its adoption as well. My personal view though, derived from persona experience. How to make the distinction, well: it's matter of discussing all together, I think. I'm clearly in favour of something similar to b) as number of elements - and considering from where you have taken those numbers, you are already aware of this ;-) Have a nice day :-) S. > Il giorno 09 set 2017, alle ore 19:40, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> ha scritto: > >> On 2017-09-09 17:05, Silvio Peroni wrote: >> For answering Peter: SH-CG should provide a "standard" way of using a >> minimal set of HTML tags for describing a scholarly article >> (independently from the discipline in consideration), and should be >> enough flexible - e.g. via RDFa - to allow users to assign specific >> discipline-oriented semantics to the various tags. > What's the incentive to have a "minimal set of HTML tags"? > > How do you make the distinction between a) single element b) "32 > elements" (or "25 elements", circa 2015), c) any number of applicable > elements at the discretion of the author since they precisely know what > to encapsulate? > > -Sarven > http://csarven.ca/#i >
Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 18:06:42 UTC