Re: [jats-list] Computer algorithms

Subject: Re: [jats-list] Computer algorithms
From: "Mirko Janc mjanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:42:06 -0000
I fully agree with Debbie's comment that algorithms are almost "pieces of
art". However, even in such case, they are highly structured, and the
impressionist and postmodern strokes of color serve easier navigation through
hard-to-understand code. Presence of heavy math is unavoidable in almost all
of the pseudo-code. JATS was never envisioned as an art-capturing XML scheme,
but I think that it is worth doing some additional development and also
"teach" authors what is OK to have in the code, and what will invariably be
deferred to a figure or some supplemental material not in the main body of
their article.

I may collect some cases and send to the list, but I am not sure how to
transmit it as attachments are not allowed. We are by no means champions of
algorithmship, but still have significant needs. What about ACM journals, or


>Shading and color in <code> are handled the same way
>as shading and color in <table>, using <styled-content>.
><code> does not allow inline math.
><preformat> does allow inline math.
>None of this means I advocate you change your practice,
>I just wanted to make it clear what JATS CAN do and to
>understand your requirements a little better. When I wrote
>algorithms, they were pseudo-code, no more, no less, using
>shading and color definitely. But I was not in the OSA field
>of study, and I was a programmer rather a long time ago in
>a limited number of programming languages.
>Mirkobs post convinces me that I do not begin to understand
>the range of typography inside an algorithm, but they
>sound more and more like art, with keywords for searching
>rather than searchable text.

Current Thread