W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > September 2015

RE: Best citation format for accessibility

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:36:17 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0601MB14220ACD6C9E6A606A4F04DCDF450@CY1PR0601MB1422.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Agreed, starting from CrossRef is fine and arguably best, because that's how both citations and article metadata are made resolvable. This is just the direction I was hoping for! And aren't the resulting semantics (as shown by the example in your previous e-mail) useful for AT? Seems to me that's just what AT would want.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:14 PM
To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken; public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Best citation format for accessibility

On 22/09/2015 12:45 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken wrote:
> So, JATS could be translated into HTML + RDFa? Now, we just need to 
> convince NIH.

We're already doing that. Well, we're not starting from JATS but from CrossRef; but I don't think the difference matters.

That's where my question is coming from. We have enough structured information that we can rewire the layout based on semantics, but I'd like to have an ideal, baseline, purely document-based ordering (and
punctuating) of the citation so that AT that doesn't take visual style into account gets the best experience.

Once I have that I can have it turn into Vancouver, Harvard, etc. styles on demand. I can even make it several shades of pastel with emoji separators.

--
• Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 19:36:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC