W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > June 2014

RE: draft agenda, DPUB IG concall 20140609 15UTC

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:14:08 +0000
To: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, Markus Gylling <markus.gylling@gmail.com>
CC: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0212e349feb74d578b0ed6d66d983f19@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
>"Document UX" might be the Web version of this?
-- I like this, although like all the proposed changes, it requires explanation (though not as much as "Aesthetics and Ergonomy") that what it is proposed to replace does not. And one thing I have always pointed out: the whole point of styling and layout is "Document UX." That's typography. Always has been, always will be. The reason things are styled the way they are, and arranged the way they are, is fundamentally to communicate distinctions between things (this thing is not the same as that thing), relationships between things (this thing is part of that thing, that thing includes this thing), relative importance (the big bold subhead is more important than the small italic subhead), etc. That's exactly the point of typography and layout. God didn't say big bold things are more important than small italic things, or that a big number at the top of a new page is a chapter number. It is a whole set of "understood" conventions (within a culture), and for western print typography it has evolved for over 500 years, and drawing on an even older manuscript culture. It is not primarily decorative, its purpose is "Document UX". So frankly I still vote for "Styling and Layout". Speaking as a typographer.

> I really don't like the term Semantics if content markup is not included.
As I mentioned on an earlier call, one reason the term "semantics" has gotten muddled is that it is used for both "structural refinement" (about the document) and "semantic enhancement" (about the content). I think most people reflexively think the latter when they hear the term "semantics" and that's why they get confused by the term "structural semantics". Liam is right, it's both, but for clarity I prefer to refer to "structural refinement" instead of "structural semantics", and leave "semantics" to being about the content, not about the document.

> The "E" in STEM
I always thought the E was Engineering, not Education. Another ambiguity: the S sometimes means "Science" and sometimes means "Scholarly". (I think it means "Science", which is why I often say "Scholarly and STM" or "Scholarly and STEM.") 

--Bill Kasdorf

-----Original Message-----
From: Liam R E Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org] 
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 3:28 PM
To: Markus Gylling
Cc: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft agenda, DPUB IG concall 20140609 15UTC

On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 21:15 +0200, Markus Gylling wrote:

I'm sorry I can't make the call this week (dental appointment; Mondays happen to have had conflicts for a while).

Some notes on renaming in the hope that it's of use:

> Layout and Styling -> Aesthetics/Ergonomy: Layout and styling has the 
> goal of improving the aesthetics of the visual presentation of the 
> material. But in addition, much of what publishers consider as 
> aesthetics (like widow
> control) is rooted in ergonomic issues, ie, to make the reading 
> experience as easy as possible.
"Document UX" might be the Web version of this? I was really pleased to see the level of attention the document got at the recent CSS F2F, and part of that is because of the prominence of "Layout and Styling", so overall I'l be happy to keep the current name.

> Metadata -> Discovery: Encouraging more professionally-published 
> content (starting with books) to be on the open web, even at the 
> metadata level, is an important hedge against a monoculture, and a 
> critical way for publishers to stay relevant.
> Content & Markup -> Semantics: This is a loaded term; alternatives 
> would be welcome.
I really don't like the term Semantics if content markup is not included, because that carries semantics too, and a big problem in book publishing (as I see it) today is the "closed book" model.

Of course, Cataloguing would sound like we're competing with OCLC, BL, LoC etc., which isn't really the case (there's some overlap with the beyond FRBR work at LoC though).

Maybe "Description Formats" if we don't like Metadata?

> Annotation -> No change
> Accessibility -> No change
> STEM -> Discussion welcome as this was re-started recently.

The "E" in STEM seems to be present or not present depending on who you ask; I suspect this is because journals and documents targeted at educators are often handled by a different division in large publishers, and the ST and M already include A for Academic.

Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Sunday, 8 June 2014 20:14:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:50 UTC