- From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 08:57:59 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-05-09 13:12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> I note that as is often the case when the blatantly obvious is said we >> have disagreement by unresolved reference. >> >> If you can't give a reason for a disagreement then you should probably >> think a bit before posting and wait until you can state what the >> disagreement is. >> >> We have two standards bodies here. What is the reason to NOT have a >> common standard? >> >> >> BTW the only 'tools' I needed to produce W3C docs was the bit of code >> to rip out the style crud produced by Microsoft Word and another that >> produced the index. >> >> I used the same tools to produce W3C and OASIS docs. > > > ...which means: little metadata or no metadata to rely on, right? I am not sure quite what you mean there. One of the reasons I think support for metadata sucks in every tool in existence is that they are all wysiwyg and metadata is something you don't see by definition. What I want is a tool that supports an editing mode that is NEITHER WYSIWYG or raw markup. I want to see my text in properly formatted paragraphs that also disclose the semantic markup. So if I had transcluded some chunk o' boilerplate there would be some sort of mark at the start saying <include:ipr2012> followed by the transcluded text. So I could read the editing copy and see immediately what is going on. I only want to see metadata that matters, not every <P> tag. It would be really nice if there was a toolset out there that generated and made use of a common set of metadata. But that has not happened. For example, it should be possible to cut an paste a citation from one document to another in such a way that tools are able to reformat it to apply whatever deranged nonsense of a citation format is required at the other end. I don't see that as existing. Pretty much every tool there is to manage citations sucks. I have tried end note and it sucks because it is an afterthought. The citation handling in Word is stovepiped to a few formats that are all stupid and few other things bother at all. It really should not be difficult, A 'database' of citations should require no more than an HTML document with a list of citations. It should be possible to drop in a citation by just typing in cite:rfc1234 or something similar. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 12:58:35 UTC