Does ease of processing make something more webby?
If so, LaTeX should be preferred to HTML.
peter
On 10/03/2014 02:01 PM, john.nj.dav...@bt.com wrote:
" Yes, but what makes HTML better for being webby than PDF?"
Because it is a mark-up language (albeit largely syntactic) which makes it much
more amenable to machine processing?
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschnei...@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 October 2014 21:15
To: Diogo FC Patrao
Cc: Phillip Lord; semantic-...@w3.org; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: scientific publishing process (was Re: Cost and access)
On 10/03/2014 10:25 AM, Diogo FC Patrao wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschnei...@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschnei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
One problem with allowing HTML submission is ensuring that reviewers can
correctly view the submission as the authors intended it to be viewed.
How would you feel if your paper was rejected because one of the reviewers
could not view portions of it? At least with PDF there is a reasonably
good chance that every paper can be correctly viewed by all its reviewers,
even if they have to print it out. I don't think that the same claim can
be made for HTML-based systems.
The majority of journals I'm familiar with mandates a certain format
for
submission: font size, figure format, etc. So, in a HTML format
submission, there should be rules as well, a standard CSS and the
right elements and classes. Not different from getting a word(c) or latex
template.
This might help. However, someone has to do this, and ensure that the result
is generally viewable.
Web conference vitally use the web in their reviewing and publishing
processes. Doesn't that show their allegiance to the web? Would the use
of HTML make a conference more webby?
As someone said, this is leading by example.
Yes, but what makes HTML better for being webby than PDF?
dfcp
peter
