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: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 00:04:33 +0200
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <664d7e83-ef7c-8106-32b6-aa8dc7e5d284@csarven.ca>
On 2017-09-09 22:48, Johannes Wilm wrote:
> The formats that focus on a limited tag-set have been developed already
> (RASH and Scholarly HTML) may have just about everything we need
> already.
It certainly does not, and that's part of the issue here.

Scholarly HTML doesn't set that constraint. RASH has the following 32

a, blockquote, body, code, em, figcaption, figure, h1, head, html, img,
li, link, math, meta, ol, p, pre, q, script, section, span, strong, sub,
sup, svg, table, td, th, title, tr, ul

Looking at that list, it seems predominantly a *print first* approach,
not "Web first"! In 2015 it was about 25 elements, and that was
certainly all one needed. So much for that.

The last thing SH would want to respond to the scholarly community is
something like "`video`? Sorry that's not allowed. Please align your
perception of scholarly information on the Web with ours (circa 2017)."

That exact line of reasoning holds true for any given element or
arbitrary constraint on top of the *living* HTML spec.

Again, authors will want to do things beyond what SH could possibly
capture, or the CG can plan for. Plenty of skills in this CG, but let's
not forget that we are only a vocal minority. I suggest that we do not
prematurely think we got scholarly information covered by way of x
elements or whatever.

Received on Saturday, 9 September 2017 22:04:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:01 UTC