- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:30:13 +0200
- To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
On 2017-09-09 20:06, Silvio Peroni wrote: > 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. Thanks for sharing your views. I asked because I'm generally coming from this perspective: * authors have the freedom to express themselves as accurately as they can, typically within the scope of the language (HTML5). * developers building flexible and smart tools, eg. if an author uses something that the tool doesn't recognise, don't do draconian error handling, work around it instead - there are plenty of lessons learnt on Web publishing, browsers, and (X)HTML. * there are more authors than tool developers, hence favouring authors' expressibility over the inconveniences that developers may have to face. -Sarven http://csarven.ca/#i >> 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 19:30:37 UTC