- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 00:20:11 -0500
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
On 01/12/2015 00:13 , Florian Rivoal wrote: > I agree, but would like to make one of your semi-implicit points > fully explicit. > > While we should prioritize for interchange over manual authoring when > there is a conflict, this should not mean that we should attach no > importance to manual authoring. It is important, and we should make > sure it is as nice as possible. Being secondary to interchange does > not make it a non goal. > > I would not like to end up in a situation where we have a format that > works great for interchange but cannot practically be edited by > hand. > > This is not just about catering to people who like vim or emacs best > as an authoring environment, but also about making sure the format > remains inspectable, hackable and debuggable without (heavy) tools. > Having humans form part of the ecosystem the format lives in is much > healthier. Absolutely, and thanks a lot for making that extra clear. If we wanted something solely ideal for interchange, we'd use JSON ;) Of the many equivalent ways of achieving high quality interchange, we should always opt for the more authorable. We should have default values and all the nice things that make this a language that wasn't designed using XML Schema. -- • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 05:20:36 UTC