- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 23:13:57 -0500
- To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
How do you prefer to organise? Here are some proposals: • We use a repo on GitHub and largely discuss through issues (at least for the concrete stuff). We can ask for w3c/scholarly-html and publish it off there. An alternative is spawning a new org, or creating a team in another one (we can do that under the scienceai org if you prefer that, but we don't want to make a landgrab). • I would suggest we use ReSpec as the format. We could also use the SH as defined by itself but the problem with that is that every time you change a definition you have to edit the parts of the document that use it. We just did that... it's not always fun. • Contributions should be made ideally through PRs more than through discussion — it makes for more concrete discussions. At the very least, if discussion then trying to root it is best. • Should we start in stages, first building the HTML structure, then overlaying semantics, etc. or should we do all at once? I reckon we might get easier consensus if we move incrementally but that's just a gut feeling. • We should pay particular attention to interaction with implementations. I know that we have tools that work around our SH, notably a parser, a set of React components that output it, parts of a common stylesheet, and ideas about validation and the such. Assuming we can all reach some rough consensus we'd certainly like to converge them on the common format. Are there any other consumers/producers here? -- • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 04:14:30 UTC