- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:12:13 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "info@csarven.ca" <info@csarven.ca>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
> There are many current HTML > documents that do not render correctly on my browser. Of course, I have my > browser set on "maximum paranoia", with ads and javascript turned off. For that reason, profiles definitely make sense. Progressive enhancement is a good solution, which more websites should practice. > You may also remember the browser wars, where different browsers had different > extensions to HTML. IE6 was a prime offender. Fortunately, those days are long behind us now. Browser competition brought back respect for standards. > Now maybe HTM5 has fixed this problem, but I am quite skeptical. Like PDF, it's all about how HTML is used. It's easy to make a PDF that only renders correctly in one version of Acrobat; the same also holds for HTML. >> Not disagreeing on that either; >> my only point was that the Web stack technically supports >> all of the benefits you listed for PDF. > > Maybe, but all this needs to be shown, and to a skeptical audience. Good point, and this gives the HTML community a couple of concrete points to work on. Thanks! > Right, so another thing that needs to be done before HTML5 can conceivably > used for scholarly conferences and journals. That said, the situation isn't that bad; it is already used in many cases, for some journals already for decades. D-Lib (http://www.dlib.org/) does it since 1995, and has always worked on all browsers, including IE6. And others such as PeerJ are doing it with great success. Even Springer publishes HTML these days. And I also practice what I preach (https://ruben.verborgh.org/articles/). Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 26 February 2018 17:13:53 UTC