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

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

From: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 20:06:17 +0200
CC: <public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org>
Message-ID: <09CF993E-3A09-4259-92DD-8DD9AFA031D9@unibo.it>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Hi Sarven,

To me having such minimal set means feasibility of developing the (various, hopefully) implementation of tools using SH-CG, and facilitating its adoption as well. My personal view though, derived from persona experience.

How to make the distinction, well: it's matter of discussing all together, I think. I'm clearly in favour of something similar to b) as number of elements - and considering from where you have taken those numbers, you are already aware of this ;-)

Have a nice day :-)

S.

> Il giorno 09 set 2017, alle ore 19:40, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> ha scritto:
> 
>> On 2017-09-09 17:05, Silvio Peroni wrote:
>> For answering Peter: SH-CG should provide a "standard" way of using a
>> minimal set of HTML tags for describing a scholarly article
>> (independently from the discipline in consideration), and should be
>> enough flexible - e.g. via RDFa - to allow users to assign specific
>> discipline-oriented semantics to the various tags.
> What's the incentive to have a "minimal set of HTML tags"?
> 
> How do you make the distinction between a) single element b) "32
> elements" (or "25 elements", circa 2015), c) any number of applicable
> elements at the discretion of the author since they precisely know what
> to encapsulate?
> 
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
> 
Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 18:06:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 September 2017 18:06:43 UTC