What I get from this article is "hey, what if we use HTML instead of LaTeX?" Unfortunately the answer to this is, "HTML is insufficient to specify all the things you need to make a paper publishable." LaTeX is a full-strength gnarly language because it had to be. If you were targeting digital distribution only, HTML (and the author really means "HTML plus CSS plus probably a small subset of JavaScript") would be maybe-kinda-sorta-plausible, but you can already go from LaTeX to HTML --- so why not write your original in the more powerful language and simplify it down to HTML when you need that? HTML+CSS+JS is actually not an improvement on PDFs, because you've got executable code in there and you'll go right down the same security-problems rabbit hole that PDF did.
To oversimplify: LaTeX is not perfect but is much smarter than the author is giving it credit for. This is that stereotypical Unix learning experience ("feature X is enormously frustrating, why can't we do something simpler" -> time passes -> "oh, feature X is actually spectacularly useful when viewed through the right lens") going on.
"HTML is insufficient to specify all the things you need to make a paper publishable."
Actually I've been wondering why we have to make academic papers "publishable". Majority of researchers read papers on computer. Even they read on paper, it's printed out from a downloaded PDF. If everything is transferred as electronic format, I'm not sure traditional typesetting is still necessary.
HTML based articles have option to be interactive and visually better. This enables better communication, which is the purpose of publishing papers. HTML is also more structured than close sourced PDF, and structured data is more machine friendly. I'm not only talking about SEO, but also citations/indexing/etc.. HTML is also easier to be embedded into other content. This makes, e.g. peer-review, easier.
If any, I think the main obstacle of HTML formatted technical papers is traditional publishers. They make a lot of money out of publishing and this would potentially squeeze their profit.
I might be biased on "majority of researchers read papers on computer". As to "high-quality typesetting", I think that depends on your standard of "high-quality". If the goal is "easier to read", then it doesn't have to be traditional typesetting. LaTex is not the only way to make authentic typesetting (and don't get me wrong; I use LaTex a lot myself). You can do that in HTML/CSS too. Actually HTML is more flexible on this because you can provide different views (e.g. Sans-Serif vs Serif fonts) for your reader for on-display reading and printed-out reading.
You can compile LaTeX to two different output formats if you want to. Sure, you'd have 2 different output files, but e.g. for slides, thats done very often.
Actually, HTML is nearly there. I tried to replicate one of my ACM-style LaTeX papers into HTML and convert it to pdf via browser. Biggest problem: position the copyright box on the first page, left column, bottom and flow the text around it. There are minor problems with browsers (e.g. Chrome does not support column-count CSS in print output), but hopefully that will improve over time.
I did not tackle the bibliography problem: Import bibtex into HTML and correctly link citations into bibliography. That will be some work.
Maybe PrinceXML can do it, but it is not Free Software.
(The author:) This issue is all about interfaces. To "use HTML" does not mean "write your papers in HTML". It means "present the final result in an HTML-compatible format", so that any user could view it seamlessly and fluidly. Fluidly means they should be able to click on a citation and see it appear e.g.
The HTML standard, which expressly makes room for foreign
technologies, when viewed as a standard is immensely more powerful than good old Latex. And in fact, if typesetting is your concern, you will already find JS libraries addressing this.
The big thing is: the HTML standard allows for future technologies to be embedded in your docs. The Latex linguistic ecosystem does not.
This point is only made clearer when one realizes that the end goal "to have a paper in my hand" is an artifact of past technologies. Going forward, "having a paper in your hands" will not stand as the end-goal of intellectual effort. Most certainly, intellectual work will have to be presented in a (a) standardized and (b) highly accessible and (c) highly interactive manner. Only HTML fits the bill.
It is clear that academia will switch to HTML. I am just saying: Get on with it. Why wait.
Comments
What I get from this article is "hey, what if we use HTML instead of LaTeX?" Unfortunately the answer to this is, "HTML is insufficient to specify all the things you need to make a paper publishable." LaTeX is a full-strength gnarly language because it had to be. If you were targeting digital distribution only, HTML (and the author really means "HTML plus CSS plus probably a small subset of JavaScript") would be maybe-kinda-sorta-plausible, but you can already go from LaTeX to HTML --- so why not write your original in the more powerful language and simplify it down to HTML when you need that? HTML+CSS+JS is actually not an improvement on PDFs, because you've got executable code in there and you'll go right down the same security-problems rabbit hole that PDF did.
To oversimplify: LaTeX is not perfect but is much smarter than the author is giving it credit for. This is that stereotypical Unix learning experience ("feature X is enormously frustrating, why can't we do something simpler" -> time passes -> "oh, feature X is actually spectacularly useful when viewed through the right lens") going on.
Actually I've been wondering why we have to make academic papers "publishable". Majority of researchers read papers on computer. Even they read on paper, it's printed out from a downloaded PDF. If everything is transferred as electronic format, I'm not sure traditional typesetting is still necessary.
HTML based articles have option to be interactive and visually better. This enables better communication, which is the purpose of publishing papers. HTML is also more structured than close sourced PDF, and structured data is more machine friendly. I'm not only talking about SEO, but also citations/indexing/etc.. HTML is also easier to be embedded into other content. This makes, e.g. peer-review, easier.
If any, I think the main obstacle of HTML formatted technical papers is traditional publishers. They make a lot of money out of publishing and this would potentially squeeze their profit.
While anecdotal, every researcher I know prints papers for reading or reviewing. High-quality typesetting makes printed papers much easier to read.
I might be biased on "majority of researchers read papers on computer". As to "high-quality typesetting", I think that depends on your standard of "high-quality". If the goal is "easier to read", then it doesn't have to be traditional typesetting. LaTex is not the only way to make authentic typesetting (and don't get me wrong; I use LaTex a lot myself). You can do that in HTML/CSS too. Actually HTML is more flexible on this because you can provide different views (e.g. Sans-Serif vs Serif fonts) for your reader for on-display reading and printed-out reading.
EDIT: typo
If there were a browser plugin that applied Knuth's linebreaking algorithm for printouts, this would be more appealing.
You can compile LaTeX to two different output formats if you want to. Sure, you'd have 2 different output files, but e.g. for slides, thats done very often.
Older generation, sure. But add about 80 that I know that prefer iAnnotate and an iPad or Surface to your list.
Actually, HTML is nearly there. I tried to replicate one of my ACM-style LaTeX papers into HTML and convert it to pdf via browser. Biggest problem: position the copyright box on the first page, left column, bottom and flow the text around it. There are minor problems with browsers (e.g. Chrome does not support column-count CSS in print output), but hopefully that will improve over time.
I did not tackle the bibliography problem: Import bibtex into HTML and correctly link citations into bibliography. That will be some work.
Maybe PrinceXML can do it, but it is not Free Software.
My proof-of-concept HTML version: http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/acm_html/test.html You can spot a few LaTeX commands, which got copy&pasted. ;)
My conclusion: HTML is useable for pdf generation, but is not sufficient to replace LaTeX.
(The author:) This issue is all about interfaces. To "use HTML" does not mean "write your papers in HTML". It means "present the final result in an HTML-compatible format", so that any user could view it seamlessly and fluidly. Fluidly means they should be able to click on a citation and see it appear e.g.
The HTML standard, which expressly makes room for foreign technologies, when viewed as a standard is immensely more powerful than good old Latex. And in fact, if typesetting is your concern, you will already find JS libraries addressing this.
The big thing is: the HTML standard allows for future technologies to be embedded in your docs. The Latex linguistic ecosystem does not.
This point is only made clearer when one realizes that the end goal "to have a paper in my hand" is an artifact of past technologies. Going forward, "having a paper in your hands" will not stand as the end-goal of intellectual effort. Most certainly, intellectual work will have to be presented in a (a) standardized and (b) highly accessible and (c) highly interactive manner. Only HTML fits the bill.
It is clear that academia will switch to HTML. I am just saying: Get on with it. Why wait.