-
Wusteman, J.: Patently ridiculous (2004)
0.10
0.10087524 = product of:
0.2269693 = sum of:
0.10067343 = weight(_text_:applications in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10067343 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.5836958 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012701439 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.08174701 = weight(_text_:software in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08174701 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.525975 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.031847417 = product of:
0.063694835 = sum of:
0.063694835 = weight(_text_:22 in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.063694835 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
- Abstract
- The Open Source Software movement has much to offer the library community. But can it survive the onslaught of patent applications?
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.231-237
-
Wusteman, J.: Whither HTML? (2004)
0.01
0.008481526 = product of:
0.038166866 = sum of:
0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016935252 = score(doc=1001,freq=8.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
0.021231614 = product of:
0.042463228 = sum of:
0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042463228 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1001, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1001)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- HTML has reinvented itself as an XML application. The working draft of the latest version, XHTML 2.0, is causing controversy due to its lack of backward compatibility and the deprecation - and in some cases disappearance - of some popular tags. But is this commotion distracting us from the big picture of what XHTML has to offer? Where is HTML going? And is it taking the Web community with it?
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.99-105
-
Wusteman, J.: XML and e-journals : the state of play (2003)
0.00
0.0023284785 = product of:
0.020956306 = sum of:
0.020956306 = weight(_text_:of in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020956306 = score(doc=4781,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- Within the library world, there is a growing interest in the use of XML in journals, not least because of its implications for e-journal archiving. But what is actually happening in the commercial journals market? How far have XML and its related standards permeated the production of real commercial journals and how do publishers and other providers of journals see this area developing? This paper looks at the activities and future plans of a selection of publishers and aggregators in the STM journals market, although many of the comments relate to the entire journals arena.
-
Wusteman, J.: Document Type Definition (DTD) (2009)
0.00
0.001425896 = product of:
0.0128330635 = sum of:
0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0128330635 = score(doc=3766,freq=6.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3766, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3766)
0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
- Abstract
- Document Type Definitions (DTDs) are schemas that describe the structure and, to a limited extent, the content of Extensible Markup Language (XML) and Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) documents. At its inception, the XML standard inherited the DTD from SGML as its only schema language. Many alternative schema languages have subsequently been developed for XML. But the DTD is still alive and actively used to define narrative-based document types. This entry describes the basic syntax of the DTD and compares it to its two main rivals: W3C XML Schema and RELAX NG.
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
