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

Word adds all sorts of horrible tags to things and makes the HTML
virtually unrender-able.

On 10/5/14, 4:19 PM, "Luca Matteis" <lmatteis@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> The real problem is still the missing tooling. Authors, even if
>>technically savy like this community, want to do what they set up to do:
>>write their papers as quickly as possible. They do not want to spend
>>their time going through some esoteric CSS massaging, for example. Let
>>us face it: we are not yet there. The tools for authoring are still very
>>poor.
>
>But are they still very poor? I mean, I think there are more tools for
>rendering HTML than there are for rendering Latex. In fact there are
>probably more tools for rendering HTML than anything else out there,
>because HTML is used more than anything else. Because HTML powers the
>Web!
>
>You can write in Word, and export in HTML. You can write in Markdown
>and export in HTML. You can probably write in Latex and export in HTML
>as well :)
>
>The tools are not the problem. The problem to me is the printing
>afterwords. Conferences/workshops need to print the publications.
>Printing consistent Latex/PDF templates is a lot easier than printing
>inconsistent (layout wise) HTML pages.
>
>Best,
>Luca
>

Received on Sunday, 5 October 2014 21:24:11 UTC