Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)

My 2cents -- PDF is absolutely atrocious for e-readers. Kindles, Kobos and
all the others *cannot* render a pdf appropriately (they're either too
small, don't have dynamic zoom and are just a huge PITA to read on
e-readers).

I would be so happy to see papers available in form that I could actually
read on an e-reader. It seems that one solution that would cater to some
people's current practices would be to deploy a LaTeX --> HTML/RDFa script.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> One problem with allowing HTML submission is ensuring that reviewers can
> correctly view the submission as the authors intended it to be viewed.  How
> would you feel if your paper was rejected because one of the reviewers
> could not view portions of it?  At least with PDF there is a reasonably
> good chance that every paper can be correctly viewed by all its reviewers,
> even if they have to print it out.  I don't think that the same claim can
> be made for HTML-based systems.
>
> Further, why should there be any technical preference for HTML at all?
> (Yes, HTML is an open standard and PDF is a closed one, but is there
> anything else besides that?)  Web conference vitally use the web in their
> reviewing and publishing processes.  Doesn't that show their allegiance to
> the web?  Would the use of HTML make a conference more webby?
>
> peter
>
>
>
> On 10/03/2014 09:11 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, the opposite is true. PDF I almost always end up printing
>> out. This isn't the point though.
>>
>> Necessity is the mother of invention. In the ideal world, a web
>> conference would allow only HTML submission. Failing that, at least HTML
>> submission. But, currently, we cannot submit HTML at all. What is the
>> point of creating a better method, if we can't use it?
>>
>> The only argument that seems at all plausible to me is, well, we've
>> always done it like this, and it's too much effort to change. I could
>> appreciate that.
>>
>> Anyway, the argument is going round in circles.
>>
>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>  In my opinion PDF is currently the clear winner over HTML in both the
>>> ability
>>> to produce readable documents and the ability to display readable
>>> documents in
>>> the way that the author wants them to display.  In the past I have tried
>>> various means to produce good-looking HTML and I've always gone back to a
>>> setup that produces PDF.  If a document is available in both HTML and
>>> PDF I
>>> almost always choose to view it in PDF.  This is the case even though I
>>> have
>>> particular preferences in how I view documents.
>>>
>>> If someone wants to change the format of conference submissions, then
>>> they are
>>> going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me, and
>>> reviewers,
>>> like me.  If someone wants to change the format of conference papers,
>>> then
>>> they are going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me,
>>> attendees, like me, and readers, like me.
>>>
>>> I'm all for *better* methods for preparing, submitting, reviewing, and
>>> publishing conference (and journal) papers.  So go ahead, create one.
>>> But
>>> just saying that HTML is better than PDF in some dimension, even if it
>>> were
>>> true, doesn't mean that HTML is better than PDF for this purpose.
>>>
>>> So I would say that the semantic web community is saying that there are
>>> better
>>> formats and tools for creating, reviewing, and publishing scientific
>>> papers
>>> than HTML and tools that create and view HTML.  If there weren't these
>>> better
>>> ways then an HTML-based solution might be tenable, but why use a worse
>>> solution when a better one is available?
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/03/2014 08:02 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are
>>>> making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage.
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 


(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,