W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2014

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

From: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 22:19:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CALp38ENHNp6aoTFBaWCezTuPsmDLhL8Krvu+jnZHveKbTOuKQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C LOD Mailing List <public-lod@w3.org>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> The real problem is still the missing tooling. Authors, even if technically savy like this community, want to do what they set up to do: write their papers as quickly as possible. They do not want to spend their time going through some esoteric CSS massaging, for example. Let us face it: we are not yet there. The tools for authoring are still very poor.

But are they still very poor? I mean, I think there are more tools for
rendering HTML than there are for rendering Latex. In fact there are
probably more tools for rendering HTML than anything else out there,
because HTML is used more than anything else. Because HTML powers the

You can write in Word, and export in HTML. You can write in Markdown
and export in HTML. You can probably write in Latex and export in HTML
as well :)

The tools are not the problem. The problem to me is the printing
afterwords. Conferences/workshops need to print the publications.
Printing consistent Latex/PDF templates is a lot easier than printing
inconsistent (layout wise) HTML pages.

Received on Sunday, 5 October 2014 20:19:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:25 UTC