SUO: Re: Multi-Source Ontology
Jon,
On the contrary, HTML is *ideal* for critical review:
JA> As a general rule, I consider hypertext demonstrations
> unsuitable for critical review, with too much automated
> waving of hands.
I agree that some people who convert LaTeX files to HTML
choose an inappropriate setting of parameters and create
a horrendously unreadable proliferation of tiny snippets.
However, that is the fault of authors who don't bother
to RTFM (and of the person who set an inappropriate
default setting for the LaTeX to HTML converter).
All the references and all background material needed
for critical review can be organized and presented as
hyperlinks exactly where needed.
The advantage of HTML is that one can organize the
the text *exactly* as the author desires without any
of the hassle that comes with automated archives,
such as the SUO email list -- the organization of that
archive is a typical example of difficult-to-navigate hash.
John