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 10:54:15 +0200
To: public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Message-ID: <2abc83a1-06fa-cc80-0b4b-83f06a352a25@csarven.ca>
On 2017-09-09 23:13, Silvio Peroni wrote:
> 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.

I would argue that most well-established publishing practices on the Web
wouldn't agree with that approach. What you consider as "metadata" is
very much human-visible "data" (in source) in the wild.

For visible data, anywhere from content publishing platforms, eg
Wordpress, to long trail of accessibility practices, to independent
communities, eg microformats, encouraging it.

So, I don't think they are reasonable, and probably counter intuitive to
using HTML to begin with. Throwing what you consider to be "metadata"
under the carpet is only really of interest to specific
tooling/frameworks. It depends on JavaScript as well as RDF libraries to
make it useful to a human reader.

See also https://dokie.li/docs#human-machine-readable

Received on Sunday, 10 September 2017 08:54:38 UTC

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