W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org > October 2017

Re: html for scholarly communication: RASH, Scholarly HTML or Dokieli?

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:59:31 -0600
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <59fee6f1-4da2-f404-72c8-e102c1f3f0c9@csarven.ca>
On 2017-10-19 07:13, Johannes Wilm wrote:
> In the two cases mentioned here: Dokieli and Substance.io/eLife, Dokieli
> seems to not filter the HTML (much?) so if I take arbitrary content for
> example copying the guardian frontpage and pasting into Dokieli gives a
> lot of garbage + margins I cannot control, etc. . In the case of
> Substance, it filters the HTML down to what that application can handle. 


You are pasting "garbage", so you are seeing "garbage". What's the use
case for pasting "garbage"? dokieli is not intended to handle "garbage"
pasting.

> The conventional logic is that unless you clearly define what restricted
> version of HTML you permit, you cannot really create an editor that is
> able to handle it all. But it sounds like the science.ai
> <http://science.ai> people have been able to go beyond this. Is that
> correctly understood?
The HTML(+RDFa) patterns in Scholarly HTML, dokieli, and scienca.ai are
very similar. The focus is mostly on RDFa for data reuse/exchange, as
opposed to HTML. The observed HTML patterns just happens to be best
practices. The CSS and JavaScript try to make the best of what's
available in their respective ways. This doesn't mean that this approach
is infinitely flexible or flawless. It just means that the constraints
and the handling is elsewhere.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2017 15:00:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:02 UTC