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.
Further, why should there be any technical preference for HTML at all? (Yes,
HTML is an open standard and PDF is a closed one, but is there anything else
besides that?) 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?
peter
On 10/03/2014 09:11 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
In my opinion, the opposite is true. PDF I almost always end up printing
out. This isn't the point though.
Necessity is the mother of invention. In the ideal world, a web
conference would allow only HTML submission. Failing that, at least HTML
submission. But, currently, we cannot submit HTML at all. What is the
point of creating a better method, if we can't use it?
The only argument that seems at all plausible to me is, well, we've
always done it like this, and it's too much effort to change. I could
appreciate that.
Anyway, the argument is going round in circles.
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email protected]> writes:
In my opinion PDF is currently the clear winner over HTML in both the ability
to produce readable documents and the ability to display readable documents in
the way that the author wants them to display. In the past I have tried
various means to produce good-looking HTML and I've always gone back to a
setup that produces PDF. If a document is available in both HTML and PDF I
almost always choose to view it in PDF. This is the case even though I have
particular preferences in how I view documents.
If someone wants to change the format of conference submissions, then they are
going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me, and reviewers,
like me. If someone wants to change the format of conference papers, then
they are going to have to cater to the preferences of authors, like me,
attendees, like me, and readers, like me.
I'm all for *better* methods for preparing, submitting, reviewing, and
publishing conference (and journal) papers. So go ahead, create one. But
just saying that HTML is better than PDF in some dimension, even if it were
true, doesn't mean that HTML is better than PDF for this purpose.
So I would say that the semantic web community is saying that there are better
formats and tools for creating, reviewing, and publishing scientific papers
than HTML and tools that create and view HTML. If there weren't these better
ways then an HTML-based solution might be tenable, but why use a worse
solution when a better one is available?
peter
On 10/03/2014 08:02 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
[...]
As it stands, the only statement that the semantic web community are
making is that web formats are too poor for scientific usage.
[...]
Phil
