- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:31:21 +0200
- To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A5F1970F-FFCD-4AB4-82E4-12028A9ABFCE@w3.org>
> On 11 Jun 2015, at 21:05 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > Understood. Thanks for pointing that out. … and, to witness this, a recent paper is at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128565 which does not have these problems at all. Ivan > > Ivan > > --- > Ivan Herman > Tel:+31 641044153 > http://www.ivan-herman.net > > (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > > > >> On 11 Jun 2015, at 21:01, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote: >> >> I feel obligated to point out that you are looking at an old article from PLOS. If you look at a recent one you will see an entirely different picture. (Full disclosure: Apex took over the production of PLOS a few months ago.) >> >> You shouldn't see this problem anymore. >> >> All equations are in MathML and also have images to accompany them. Including those converted from LaTex. >> >> All tables are in HTML, though PLOS doesn't currently render the HTML tables online. >> >> The XML generates the PDF, including the equations and tables. The equation and table alternative images are automated derivatives of the PDF layout. >> >> (All this from my colleague Greg Suprock, Apex's Head of Solutions Architecture. Really smart guy. Some of you may know him. Will not stand for crap.) >> >> So please don't judge PLOS by that old example. >> >> --Bill K >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@w3.org] >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:19 AM >> To: Dave Cramer; Ivan Herman >> Cc: Bill Kasdorf; Tzviya Siegman; W3C Digital Publishing IG >> Subject: Re: use case: page based scholarly reference? >> >>> On 11/06/2015 15:26 , Dave Cramer wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org >>> <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: >>> P.S. I have to say that PLOS is not a really good example for >>> quality. I was shocked to see that, on [2], all the numbers in the >>> text are… images! It looks horrible in my browser, it is bad in so >>> many ways… Sigh... >>> >>> Just wow! Here's how they mark up the number "1.8 million": >>> >>> <span class="inline-formula"><img >>> src="article/asset?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253.e003.PNG" >>> class="inline-graphic"></span> million >>> >>> Human-readable AND accessible. Nice job!* >> >> "Just wow!" was pretty much my reaction too, at least if you filter out the parts that one wouldn't post to a public mailing list. >> >>> Is this an automated MathML to image conversion used inappropriately? >> >> But how would you end up with MathML to markup just the one number in the first place? Broken LaTeX conversion? Note that not *every* number is imaged (but quite a few are). >> >> -- >> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 04:31:33 UTC