W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Keep DRM out of Web standards -- Reject the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) proposal

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:01:42 +0100
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <201306201301.44649.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Arthur Clifford:
>From Creative Commons I can generate HTML markup to include in my page:
><a rel="license" 
>alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" 
>src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work 
>is licensed under a <a rel="license" 
>Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.
>Now what happens if I have:
><img id='myImage' ... />
><a rel="license" 
>alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" 
>src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />This work 
>is licensed under a <a rel="license" 
>Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>
><img id='yourimage' .../>
>To which image does the creative commons markup apply?

The best approach is of course to store metadata about the image
as plain text metadata within the image, this ensures that the
connection is not lost at least without intent.
The disadvantage of course is, that many people will not look
into the metadata of an pixel-image, if they use it ;o)

Therefore it is indeed a good idea to combine both the
metadata within the image with additional metadata within
the normal (X)HTML oder SVG file, that references the image.
In SVG this is pretty simple, because it has a metadata element
and you can put the RDF+CC-variant as XML directly into
the metadata element of the image element, that references
the pixel image.
For (X)HTML you can use for example the RDFa approach 
and provide information about the subject of the metadata
with the attribute 'about'. To indicate machine readable that
it is something about rights and licences, one has to add
a little bit more ...

Whether this is made visible/acessible in the presentation to the
normal user, depends obviously on the capability of
the user agent, but this applies for all features of
formats like (X)HTML. 
But one can use styling of course to compensate
bugs and gaps of less advanced user agents at
least, if the user allows author driven styling of the content.


As you can see, for XHTML+RDFa there are already two
recommendations. Version 1.0 is already from 2008.

HTML5 is still in a draft stage and some people are 
pretty successful in their attempts to prevent HTML5 from
beeing extensible, it has not namespace, no version indication 
and there is a tendency to keep everything as tag soup 
under the control of the vendors and the HTML5 working group, 
to avoid, that other organisations or authors can use too much of
their own intellectual capabilities or that they can do 
what they really need with HTML5 ;o)
Therefore, I think, you will not find anything about this in the HTML5 draft,
as you will find nothing about this en/decryption issue.

But additionally to the HTML5 draft there is at least a draft
for an extension HTML5+RDFa: 


Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 11:03:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:29 UTC