HTML as an Accessible Format for Papers

>>el3ctr+(OP)
I don't think HTML is the right approach. HTML is better than PDF, but it is still a format for displaying/rendering.

the actual paper content format should be separated from its rendering.

i.e. it should contain abstract, sections, equations, figures, citations etc. but it shouldn't have font sizes, layout etc.

the viewer platforms then should be able to style the content differently.

>>billco+gd
Wouldn’t that be CSS?

>>afavou+od
no

<pre><code> abstract text ... </code></pre>

</div>

<ol>

<li>author one</li>

<li>author two</li>

<ol>

</div>

should be just:

[abstract]

abstract text

[authors]

author one | email | affiliation

author two | email | affiliation

>>billco+9e
Sounds like XML and XSL would be a great fit here. Shame it’s being deprecated.

But you could still use HTML. Elements with a dash in are reserved for custom elements (that is, a new standardised element will never take that name) so you could do:

    <paper-author-list>
      <paper-author />
    </paper-author-list>

And it would be valid HTML. Then you’d style it with CSS, with

    paper-author {
      display: list-item;
    }

And so on.

>>afavou+ef
Nothing is stopping you from using server side XSL. I personally dont think its a great fit, but people need to stop acting like xsl has been wiped from the face of the earth.

>>bawolf+Kg
Yes but we’re specifically talking about a display format here. Something requiring a server side transform before being viewable by a user is a clear step backwards.

zlacker