- From: Laura Dawson <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 21:23:40 +0000
- To: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C LOD Mailing List <public-lod@w3.org>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
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