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

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

From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:30:13 +0200
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <98984de1-b311-a2f6-d533-f910fd318044@csarven.ca>
On 2017-09-09 20:06, Silvio Peroni wrote:
> 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.


Thanks for sharing your views. I asked because I'm generally coming from
this perspective:

* authors have the freedom to express themselves as accurately as they
can, typically within the scope of the language (HTML5).

* developers building flexible and smart tools, eg. if an author uses
something that the tool doesn't recognise, don't do draconian error
handling, work around it instead - there are plenty of lessons learnt on
Web publishing, browsers, and (X)HTML.

* there are more authors than tool developers, hence favouring authors'
expressibility over the inconveniences that developers may have to face.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i



>> 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 19:30:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 9 September 2017 19:30:38 UTC