- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:15:45 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
- CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
On 10/06/2015 14:02 , Ivan Herman wrote: > I am not sure what this translates into in a requirement for the > identification part, namely that 'reasonable' units within the > publication should have an easily identifiable URL, or URL structure > (note that the examples above actually define ranges and not only one > page). This may be a page but that is a fluid notion in this case, > that may not be appropriate for scholarly purposes. But I am a bit > uncertain how to formulate it before putting it into the use case > directory… One question I have reading this is about usability. Imagining some form of resilient linking is used (the example below is from Emphasis 2 [0] but others tend to be the same), if I wanted to anchor a link to a paragraph I'd end up with something that looked like: D. Ahut, et al., “Sustainable Critical Avalanches of Alpine Fauna,” Cryptozoology, vol. 42, #p[MMTMMT],h[BcdTcg,1], Mar. 1977 The "#p[MMTMMT],h[BcdTcg,1]" bit can replace pages (you can also do ranges with it) and so long as you're in a digital context in which it is presumably clickable it's fine; but when it shows up in print as it invariably will, well, I'd hate to have to type that back in. Is this something that should be a consideration, or should references from print to digital be largely considered hopeless anyway (since in practice you just search for the paper's title)? [0] http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/emphasis-update-and-source/ -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 14:15:50 UTC