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
There is <article> <section> <figure> <legend>, but yes, <abstract> and <authors> is missing as such. But there are meta tags for such things. Then there is RDF and Thing. Not quite the same, I know, but it's not completely useless.

>>panzi+mf
and you could shim these gaps with custom components, hypothetically

zlacker