Re: Petitioning ISWC to allow Web friendly formats

On 5/6/13 9:24 AM, "Sarven Capadisli" <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

>On 05/06/2013 02:55 PM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>> What format(s) are being used today that are not "web friendly"?
>>
>> PDF, for example, is a formal and official part of the open web.  In
>>fact,
>> it is a normative reference in the HTML5 specification from the W3C.
>
>"Web friendly" here refers to native to the Web.

Again, PDF is an official part of the open web - as defined by the W3C.
How much more "native" is there??


>Given that generalization, PDF is not as Web friendly as HTML and
>friends, 

That is a definition that YOU have chosen. It is not one that is used by
any official standards body, government regulation, etc. As such, it's use
creates confusion amongst the uninformed user and that's certainly
something none of us want.


>Proving this is a trivial exercise as we simply have to
>look at how information is exchanged today across the globe, and how our
>communication has changed drastically (arguably for the better).

And that's certainly an excellent endeavor.  But you need to be sure to
phrase things in that manner or in ways that properly and accurately
reflect your goals.

If you want to talk about (X)HTML-like formats as a set of formats for
content delivery - that's perfectly reasonable and enables you and others
to focus on the specifics of your desires (and the issues that it also
brings up).   But using a term such as "web friendly" says nothing and
only creates confusion.


>Moreover, PDF on the Web is a good "hack". Applications or services that
>work within or for the Web browser are all great efforts,

A web browser is not the only medium for communication of content - in
fact, on mobile devices native application GREATLY TROUNCE the browser for
all common uses.  


Leonard

Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 13:34:15 UTC