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

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

From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 11:02:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD2k14PevXiPS6Q9K5+GiCFk=WnsTUZZp-=o=wTnzKCT3GZF-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org>
Cc: W3C Scholarly HTML CG <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
I and some others came up with the idea of ScholarlyHTML about 6 years ago
- we posted a draft . Later - about 2 years ago - Robin Berjon took the
ideas into a W3C group - but I haven't seen much since.

P.


On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org> wrote:

> 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 <(520)%20399-8880>
>



-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2017 10:11:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 September 2017 10:11:01 UTC