- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:10:27 -0400
- To: Gareth Oakes <goakes@gpsl.co>, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C Scholarly HTML CG <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
On 17/03/2016 21:22 , Gareth Oakes wrote: > Firstly I agree that it would be very helpful to build a validation rule > set for this, as an expression of the boundaries of ScholarlyHTML. I > know it’s a bit early to have it all nailed down at this stage, and > would certainly take concerted effort. A first step for this would be to use the HTML validator. It's not constraining enough, but it would certainly already catch issues. The only problem with that is that it only supports RDFa Lite, whereas SH uses a little bit of RDFa Full. Ideally, I'd like to get rid of that and rely only on Lite — input on achieving this welcome. A second step would be to only validate the structure and not details about the way in which the overlaid semantics are conveyed. Again, it would not get anything, but it's a first step. The section+hunk outline of an article should not be much of a challenge for RNG, but it's worth thinking about whether unsupported content should be ignored or signalled in validation. -- • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •
Received on Friday, 18 March 2016 16:10:52 UTC