- From: Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 02:46:35 +0200
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Cc: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAa1Xzm9vqjz=L1ZgsWY2hZxrxL5jdKrgxEDNBd8G6yLaRXT-A@mail.gmail.com>
Totally agree with Makx's points in this thread. For me: (1) Every format has its own purpose and ideal use case. (2) Our BPs shouldn't be format-dependent. Best, CI. On 28 March 2015 at 09:30, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: > > > > Anyone publishing tabular data in a PDF really needs to have a word with > > themselves. > > > > Can we maybe try not to get into these kinds of absolute, unqualified > statements? > > I agree that if someone has tubular data and creates a PDF that contains > only a table with just that table is not doing anyone a service. However, > if > such a table is included in a document that contains explanations and > analysis of the data, aimed at a human readership, I don't think PDF is a > bad choice. Of course, the data in the table should be published in a > better > machine-readable format alongside the PDF. What I would not want to see is > that we encourage service providers to publish data only as CSV and > discontinue publication of any human-readable information. > > As Annette says, it depends on the intention. > > Makx. > > > > -- --- Carlos Iglesias. Open Data Consultant. +34 687 917 759 contact@carlosiglesias.es @carlosiglesias http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
Received on Saturday, 4 April 2015 00:47:03 UTC