W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2009

[whatwg] on bibtex-in-html5

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:28:52 -0400
Message-ID: <fbb7c5df0906020828n64141eb8m92f3da5a19254a90@mail.gmail.com>
So exactly what is the process by which this gets resolved? Is there one?

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> I agree that BibTeX is suboptimal. But what should we use instead?
>
> As I've suggested:
>
> 1) use Dublin Core.
>
> This gives you the basic critical properties: literals for titles and
> dates, and relations for versions, part/containers, contributors,
> subjects.
>
> You then have a consistent and general way to represent (HTML)
> documents and embedded references to other documents, etc. (citation
> references). This would cover the most important areas that BibTeX
> covers.
>
> 2) this goes far, but you're then left with a few missing pieces for citations:
>
> a. more specific contributors (like editors and translators)
> b. identifiers (there's dc:identifier, but no way to explicitly denote
> that it's a doi, isbn, issn, etc.)
> c. what I call "locators"; volume, issue, pages, etc.
> d. types (book, article, patent, etc.)
>
> If there's some consensus on this basic way forward, we can talk about
> details on 2.
>
> Bruce
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 08:28:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:12 UTC