Re: elements for basic academic articles

Hi,

I'm not sure if I follow the logic here - surely it would be simpler for
authors to specify heading levels directly, and have a machine add the
section markup! That way you can restructure a document by changing one tag
(better, still use Markdown). This is actually one of the strongest
features of the word processing model where styles imply hierarchy, there
is an outline, and you can change it very easily using styles and see it
immediately reflected in the outline view, or change the outline view and
see a change in the WYSIWYG mode.

Is hand-authoring of HTML even a goal? I am not sure we should be looking
to support that - all of the examples I've seen of the latest scholarly
HTML look far to complicated for that.

pt

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
wrote:

> Hi Robin, Tzviya, Daniel,
>
> In RASH (https://github.com/essepuntato/rash/), we use a different
> approach to deal with the headings that is basically handled by nested
> section. The idea is to use always “h1” element to identify section
> titles, while the way they are visualised by a browser is handled by CSS
> and strictly dependent on the actual position in the hierarchical
> organisation of the sections/sub-sections. Here an example:
>
>
> [cut]
>
> Thanks a lot for your answers, and I totally agree with the point you are
> raising here, in particular if we consider the interchangeability of the
> format first.
>
> I think that this boils down to the sort of decision about authoring
> versus interchange formats I made in another thread. The sort of model
> you describe is great for authors.
>
>
> Yes, indeed. That choice in RASH was made exactly for that: since we
> didn’t have visual tools to support authors in creating HTML5 scholarly
> documents, we wanted to keep things as easy as possible to in order to
> simplify the authoring of such documents by using simple text editors.
>
> Related to this issue (i.e., prefer h1-h6 instead of h1 only), I would
> like to see that the SH format we are trying to build won't allow to
> express the same semantics by means of different elements. In order to make
> everything simpler with SH, I think it would be good to bind a particular
> structural semantics behaviour to only one element. For instance, the case
> I would like to avoid (for example) is to use “i” and “em” interchangeably
> for expressing the same semantics. But this, maybe, is something that would
> be discussed more in depth in the near future.
>
> Have a nice day :-)
>
> S.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
> Tel: +39 051 2094871
> E-mail: silvio.peroni@unibo.it
> Web: http://www.essepuntato.it
> Twitter: essepuntato
>
>


-- 
Peter Sefton +61410326955 pt@ptsefton.com http://ptsefton.com
Gmail, Twitter & Skype name: ptsefton