- From: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:46 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
- Cc: "Cramer, Dave" <dave.cramer@hbgusa.com>, Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>
On September 27, 2016 at 2:13:44 AM, Robin Berjon (robin@berjon.com) wrote: > On 26/09/2016 11:44 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken wrote: > To address metadata encoding more specifically, it shouldn't come as a > surprise to some here that I would advocate for schema.org as a > sensible, widely deployed and developer-adopted option. Maybe some of > the work that we've done with Scholarly HTML ought to be applied more > generally (with some scholarly specifics such as using > `hasDigitalDocumentPermission` to mark open access)? Some of the > modelling is a bit indirect (for instance affiliations are indirected > precisely because they are ephemeral) but a lot of it is generic enough. > It can be used in a manifest as JSON-LD, which could be sweet. I think that's great too... so long as there is zero expectation that browsers will support that natively. But we welcome user land formats as metadata mixed into markup so long as they don't interfere with the rendering of HTML.
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 04:31:17 UTC