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

Hi Johannes,

About RASH, just to provide the rationale for justifying two points you have raised:

> banning h2-h6

The rationale behind this choice is that section nesting is already sufficient for deriving the importance of the section title (created with “h1”) and there is, thus, no need to explicitly identify the importance by the heading by using the correct heading number. To me this approach is more flexible – even if someone (maybe Robin) told me in a previous thread that could have compatibility issues, even if it is totally fine for HTML5 – and avoid mistakes/inconsistencies like:

<section>
 <h1>…</h1>
 <p>…</p>
 <section>
  <h3>…</h3>
  <p>…</p>
 </section>
</section>

If I would use only “h1” in the previous example, the snippet would be perfectly consistent.

In addition, using only “h1” just meaning “heading” would allow one to specify very low level headings (e.g. >=7) consistently – even if I really don’t how many “h7” headings can exist in all the scholarly articles of the world. 

> adding author information to the head and not the body

And here is the rationale of the choice: the title, authors, keywords, are not really the “body” of an article – which should be the text which define the research described in it. They are just metadata of the article, and the place where usually we put metadata in HTML is within “head”.

I’m not saying these choice are the true path. However, I think they are reasonable choice though.

Have a nice day :-)

S.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silvio Peroni, Ph.D.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of Bologna, Bologna (Italy)
Tel: +39 051 2095393
E-mail: silvio.peroni@unibo.it
Web: https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/silvio.peroni/en
Twitter: essepuntato