Done.
The goal of a new paper-preparation and display system should, however, be to
be better than what is currently available. Most HTML-based solutions do not
exploit the benefits of HTML, strangely enough.
Consider, for example, citation links. They generally jump you to the
references section. They should instead pop up the reference, as is done in
Wikipedia.
Similarly for links to figures. Instead of blindly jumping to the figure,
they should do something better, perhaps popping up the figure or, if the
figure is already visible, just highlighting it.
I have put in both of these as issues.
peter
On 10/08/2014 03:18 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
On 2014-10-07 15:44, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
Well, I remain totally unconvinced that any current HTML solution is as
good as the current PDF setup. Certainly htlatex is not suitable.
There may be some way to get tex4ht to do better, but no one has
provided a solution. Sarven Capadisli sent me some HTML that looks much
better, but even on a math-light paper I could see a number of
glitches. I haven't seen anything better than that.
Would you mind creating an issue for the glitches that you are experiencing?
https://github.com/csarven/linked-research/issues
Please mention your environment and the documents you've looked at. Also keep
in mind the LNCS and ACM SIG authoring guidelines. The purpose of the LNCS and
ACM CSS is to adhere to the authoring guidelines so that the the generated PDF
file or print output looks as expected (within reason).
Much appreciated!
-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i
