bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnupedia] just HTML??


From: Christopher Mahan
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnupedia] just HTML??
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:27:58 -0800

I agree that HTML should be used for rendering, but not for storing.

I strongly believe that XML is superior for storing the information.

The main idea is that a complete article will have many elements, such as title, sections, paragraphs, quotes, mathematical equations, drawings, graphs, charts, video clips, sound clips, (such as an article on bird songs), links, a bibliography/list of works cited, revision history, comments, ranking (votes), and such things... I don't see that fitting in one HTML document.

Also, the author should be able to enter all this information online, much like a Monster.com resume, going from screen to screen, working on each element independently.

The author should also be able to upload the document as an XML file (following the proper schema-missing pieces assumed blank <videoclips />), and continue to edit it using the aforementioned web-based editor. This way, the author could work on part of the document off line, then bring it all together online.

As far as voting, I think the only thing the voting should be about is the relevance of the particular article in the context.

For example, an article entitled: "The fallacy of Evolution" would be very relevant in the "Creationism vs. the Evolution Theory in the United States and their influence on politics", but not necessarily in the "Roots of Mankind" archaeological discussion.

So, all articles should be allowed, even the "Death to Geeks" inflammatory ranting, as an expression of the social problems found in modern society.



----Original Message Follows----
From: David Tanzer <address@hidden>
Reply-To: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] just HTML??
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:01:24 -0500 (EST)

Tom Chance wrote:

> I've been talking to RMS who agrees that it would be best to
> keep it simple with HTML (not XML or other text
> display technologies), not only because it will work
> with any browser (even lynx!) but also because it will
> be easy to change into other formats should we wish
> to. Especially easy if we display with HTML
> (compatible) and save data with a database, not a
> large number of files.

This is is just an argument for using HTML for the presentation
format.  But it would be incredibly shortsighted to require that articles
can only be submitted in HTML.  All that should be required for a
submission format X is that there be a standardized way of converting X
to HTML.

For example, it would very desirable to accept submissions in
Latex.  The latex source is much more intelligible than the HTML
formatting commands into which it gets converted.  By posting
that source as part of the encyclopedia, the reusability and
modifiability of the document is greatly enhanced.

Since XML is essentially HTML with some arbitrary restrictions
removed--whereas HTML has a fixed set of tags, XML
allows the author the freedom to use whatever tags are most
descriptive--it is more natural and flexible for human _writers_.
The tagging allows that writers to add descriptive metadata,
and this makes the information reusable for new, unanticipated
applications in the future.  I.e., it lays the foundation for
the subsequent _querying_ of the encyclopedia.

So with XML open to the writers (which includes HTML as
a subset), and HTML needed for the browsers, all that is needed
is a conversion script.  If authors choose to use their own
XML schema, we could ask that they send in the script that
converts it to HTML.





_______________________________________________
Bug-gnupedia mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]