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

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

From: Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:52:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgm-Qiu8swMfKFvi=0V4xjCL4XOJgiUUmCzjVOgnMwazpfmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Hey,
at Fidus Writer [1] we are about ready to convert from our basic HTML
exporter to one of the standards. As I understand it, there are currently
three standards out there that more or less aim to do the same thing: RASH
[2], Scholarly HTML [3], and Dokieli [4]. We had thought we would go for
Scholarly HTML, but now I am not sure if it is being maintained at all any
more. Is there a reason why we have three different formats for this? Are
we moving toward just one, or do they have different purposes?

Also, I see that RASH and Dokieli allow metadata to be added in a variety
of different formats. I wonder if one of the ways is the recommended way to
ensure that other tools can work with the data later on?

[1] https://www.fiduswriter.org
[2] https://github.com/essepuntato/rash
[3] https://w3c.github.io/scholarly-html/
[4] https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli

-- 
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2017 08:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 September 2017 08:52:25 UTC