- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:27:22 +0100
- To: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C LOD Mailing List <public-lod@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Bernadette Hyland <bhyland@3roundstones.com>
Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com> writes: > 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 > Web! > > 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 :) Yes, you can. Most of the publishers use XML at some point in their process, and latex gets exported to that. I am quite happy to keep LaTeX as a user interface, because it's very nice, and the tools for it are mature for academic documents (in practice, this means cross-referencing and bibliographies). So, as well as providing a LNCS stylesheet, we'd need a htlatex cf.cfg, and one CSS and it's done. Be good to have another CSS for on-screen viewing; LNCS's back of a postage stamp is very poor for that. Phil
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 11:27:48 UTC