- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:59:31 -0600
- To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
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