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 10:28:57 +0200
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <27724b13-532d-cbc5-064b-fe0e8d8a44d5@csarven.ca>
On 2017-09-10 09:43, Ivan Herman wrote:
> (Although this issue is minor compared to a number of more general
> issues discussed in the thread, nevertheless…)
> 
> (For some reasons my original email did not end up in the community
> group mailing list, re-sending…)
> 
> On 9 Sep 2017, 23:14 +0200, Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>, wrote:
>> Hi Johannes,
>>
>> </snip>
> 
>>> 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.
>>  
> 
> HTML5 seems to have the right elements that express these things
> semantically: the <header>-<main>-<footer> elements. It strikes me as
> providing exactly the kind of separation  Silvio has in mind, but being
> (probably) much closer to the type of applications Johannes talks about,
> which relies on elements being in the <body>.


https://dokie.li/docs#structure-and-semantics


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
Received on Sunday, 10 September 2017 08:29:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 10 September 2017 08:29:23 UTC