RE: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

" Yes, but what makes HTML better for being webby than PDF?"
Because it is a mark-up language (albeit largely syntactic) which makes it much more amenable to machine processing?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] 
Sent: 03 October 2014 21:15
To: Diogo FC Patrao
Cc: Phillip Lord; semantic-web@w3.org; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)



On 10/03/2014 10:25 AM, Diogo FC Patrao wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     One problem with allowing HTML submission is ensuring that reviewers can
>     correctly view the submission as the authors intended it to be viewed.
>     How would you feel if your paper was rejected because one of the reviewers
>     could not view portions of it?  At least with PDF there is a reasonably
>     good chance that every paper can be correctly viewed by all its reviewers,
>     even if they have to print it out.  I don't think that the same claim can
>     be made for HTML-based systems.
>
>
>
> The majority of journals I'm familiar with mandates a certain format 
> for
> submission: font size, figure format, etc. So, in a HTML format 
> submission, there should be rules as well, a standard CSS and the 
> right elements and classes. Not different from getting a word(c) or latex template.

This might help.  However, someone has to do this, and ensure that the result is generally viewable.
>
>
>     Web conference vitally use the web in their reviewing and publishing
>     processes.  Doesn't that show their allegiance to the web?  Would the use
>     of HTML make a conference more webby?
>
>
> As someone said, this is leading by example.

Yes, but what makes HTML better for being webby than PDF?

>
> dfcp
>
>
>
>     peter
>

Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 21:01:35 UTC