Am 07.05.2013 14:57 schrieb Norman Gray : > > Greetings. > > On 2013 May 7, at 09:32, RebholzSchuhmann wrote: > >> I guess, we look at two different use cases > > Indeed! Very much so. > > I'm loth to re-enter this cluster of threads, which I thought had been beaten > to death last week, so forgive me if I derail the thread into a more > interesting direction with a radical proposition: > > HTML != Web. > > Now I'm sure that everyone on this list is now exclaiming in outrage at my > insulting suggestion that they don't already know this, but is _is_ odd to > see people on the LOD and SW lists still having this argument so very loudly. > I've repeatedly double-checked the cc list to confirm that this really is > happening. > > For me, the really big thing about the LOD and SW movements is that they have > repeatedly stressed that there is more to the (data) web than piles and piles > of HTML pages (so very Web 2.0). Yes, HTML has advantages (as has been > laboriously rehearsed here), but it's not the only game in town. > > If this community really wants a 'dog food' exercise, then how about > advertising, running, publishing and archiving a LOD/SW conference with NO > HTML in sight at all? There could be RDF, txt, PDF, XML with XSL and CSS, > RSS, ConNeg, and every other TLA you can think of; but not the FLA. Lots of > data formats, each doing the thing they're best at on the Semantic Web of > Linked Open Data, together showing that it really is true that HTML != Web. > > Now, _that_ would be an interesting dog-food exercise.
+1 to all of that (but whats wrong with RDFa in HTML?) I signed the petition in the first place because it asks to commit documents also in _other_ formats than solely PDF. That is the main point. (sorry for the PDF bashing, I think this is a result of beeing pressed by so many institutions to use this one format). oo
