- From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
- Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 05:00:47 -0300
- To: "contact@carlosiglesias.es" <contact@carlosiglesias.es>
- Cc: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANx1PzxHniXwt87EFVrk3je9d5fR7zAxjVgFWLfzfBy=t2DyGw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Carlos, I also agree with that! In general, the current BP are format-independent. kind regards, Bernadette 2015-04-03 21:46 GMT-03:00 Carlos Iglesias <contact@carlosiglesias.es>: > 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 > -- Bernadette Farias Lóscio Centro de Informática Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Saturday, 4 April 2015 08:01:35 UTC