Re: Formats and icing (Was Re: [ESWC 2015] First Call for Paper)

Hi everybody,

I won't disturb the discussion a lot, but what you say is really
interesting! From my academic and physical sciences bias (as a student
at master's level at université Paris-Sud), this is just NOT the way
publication is considered by the researchers of my university.

So may I leak what is exchange here to another discussion (on facebook,
sorry…). It is HackYourPhD, a French group working on open science:
http://hackyourphd.org
https://www.facebook.com/groups/499463776745202/

Best,

Jibé

Le 01/10/2014 21:26, Sarven Capadisli a écrit :
> On 2014-10-01 21:05, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> Dear Sarven,
>>
>> This stuff is really cool: http://linked-research.270a.info/
>>
>> Couple of questions: How did you come up with such a close CSS/HTML
>> template as the LCNS latex version? Did you hand code the CSS to make
>> it look as close as possible or was it automated by some tool I'm not
>> aware of?
> 
> As venues always give precise instructions on what template to follow e.g.:
> 
> http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1121537/application/pdf/SPLNPROC+Author+Instructions_Aug2014.pdf
> 
> 
> that's exactly what I did. Read it line by line and wrote the CSS for it.
> 
> There is no doubt that the CSS can be better. Different browsers for
> instance have varying CSS3 print support.
> 
> If you thought http://linked-research.270a.info/ looked cool, why not
> change the <link href="lncs.css" to "acm.css" from your browser's
> developer tool.
> 
> What's demanded by the conferences/publishers is an archaic
> presentation. Fixed page length. Fixed "view". So be it. That is a small
> subset of what we can achieve using the Web stack.
> 
>> What you're saying about moving towards RDFa for publishing papers
>> should definitely be discussed more, however, CSS/HTML still fails in
>> a lot of things that Latex on the other hand excels at. For example
>> typography and font kerning/spacing. All that works really well in
>> latex/pdf, while in HTML you get different results in different
>> browsers. Journals certainly can't expect inconsistencies. I've seen
>> templates built in PDF using Latex that you can dream of using
>> HTML/CSS. It's just a better set of tools for when it comes to
>> publishing *static* documents, because they were built for static
>> documents. The Web on the other hand is rarely static. It's an
>> interactive playground better suited for a DOM structure such as HTML.
> 
> Let me ask you to take a step back for a second. Are you convinced that
> there are far more possibilities with LaTeX/PDF for data representation,
> presentation and interaction than HTML+CSS+JavaScript+RDFa+SVG+MathML..
> ? Do we really need to battle that out? :) Don't worry, I will. As I'll
> demonstrate in my final PhD dissertation ;)
> 
> If PDF was so good at static documents, we'd have the Web of PDFs
> instead of Web of HTMLs. I disagree that the Web is rarely static.
> 
> As far as the print precision goes, I agree, CSS3 and browser support
> for printing has a lot of work to do. But, what level of precision is
> the SW/LD conferences are worried about providing to publishers? I
> recall that Springer for instance asks for only the PDF. What that
> practically means it that, one can go from LaTeX, HTML+CSS, or dare I
> say, JPEG to PDF. There is no precision police for rendering. Most
> people and organizations have printers that have 300-600 DPI support.
> 
>> Isn't there just a standard way to add RDF markup to a PDF file?
> 
> Maybe. But, that's totally backwards, IMO.
> 
> -Sarven
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 10:43:30 UTC