- From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:54:47 +0000
- To: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
"Likewise"?!!? <Sorry to post, but I just find this too twisted.> > On 25 Feb 2018, at 20:23, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be> wrote: > > Dear Peter, > > Note that all of your items can be achieved with the current Web technology stack: > >> - self-contained documents > > You can embed all resources in an HTML document, > by inlining styles and scripts, and using data: URIs. > >> - a document as a sequence of pages with non-varying line width and page height > > You can obtain that with CSS. > Set a consistent line-height in points, > and specify the page dimensions. > >> - non-varying fonts and glyphs, renderable at different resolutions > > This is possible with system fonts and WOFF fonts. > >> - non-varying embedded graphics, renderable at different resolutions > > This is possible with SVG. > >> - multiple popular ways to produce conformant documents > > There exist many editors for HTML, CSS, SVG. > >> - multiple popular ways to render at low cost > > There exist many free browsers. > >> (Yes, some of these are not true of PDF itself, but instead are true of the >> standard uses of PDF in scholarly publishing.) > > Likewise, some of the things mentioned above are not universal HTML practices > (in particular the embedding of all resources), but are technologically possible. "Likewise" completely misrepresents the situation in relation to your responses. Peter says that the above things are *standard practice* in PDF You say that all the above are *technologically possible* in the Web stack. That just isn't "likewise". In fact, probably none of the above are standard practice in the Web stack, and few people if any could achieve them with their current tooling for paper authorship in things such as GDocs or Word, or Latex, which they can for PDF. I would say that you are making the equivalent of a spurious Turing Machine argument. > >> From the above, I conclude that the technological advantages alone should not be a burden. > Please let me know what other burdens you see. > > Best, > > Ruben Cheers -- Hugh 023 8061 5652
Received on Sunday, 25 February 2018 20:55:15 UTC