W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2003

Re: [SVG 1.2] Other notes.

From: Thomas DeWeese <Thomas.DeWeese@Kodak.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:32:54 -0500
Message-ID: <3FCBB386.1070402@Kodak.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, www-svg@w3.org

Robin Berjon wrote:

> We can encourage implementers to at 
> least display a warning on view source when CC data is present, which 
> isn't much to ask for. 

    I guess the question is how much RDF parsing do you have to
do to figure out if there is CC data or a part description or credit
card info or anything else that anyone can imagine putting in the
metadata tag of SVG.  Or perhaps CC data embeded in a credit card
charge embedded in a Bill of lading etc.

    My feeling is that if someone wants copyright information
at the top of view source they should put copyright information at
the top of the source! Is this really such a hard idea to grasp!

> Heck, given control over contextual menus it's 
> easy for the user to enforce that warning in a generic manner (using the 
> CC data a script can find in the DOM), independently of implementer 
> choices. And it encourages usage of SemWeb technologies, if ever so 
> slightly, which is a good thing in any circumstance.

> 
>> Sure, I appreciate the concerns, just I don't think RDF CC addresses 
>> those
>> concerns as UA's will not be able to implement it cheaply enough, and 
>> if we
>> do want such behaviour, a copyright element does all the same good at 
>> a much
>> lower cost.  Suggesting explicit licensing info via RDF is good, I'll
>> certainly be using it at some point
> 
> 
> So what you would want is text that encourages explicit RDF licensing 
> but without any suggested possible UA behaviour? Why not since the 
> embedded licensing is legally binding, but then why not suggest that 
> implementors walk that extra small step of doing it at least very 
> partially?

    I'm not so sure it is likely to really be such a small step.

    What I think is being asked for in a very roundabout manner is
a 'bozo bit'.  A simple yes/no flag in the content that says 'allow
save'/'don't allow save'.  This could be a simple attribute (perhaps
two, one for view and  one for save ) on the root SVG element and the
SVG  specification could require User agents to respond to them
(similar to how they are required to defeature in the face of 
panZoom="disable").

    If this is what people want please don't force implementors to
muck with the contents of metadata tags and all of RDF.  Let
the author express the intent directly to the UA.  Then if authors
want to put in the RDF they can but UA's can continue to blithely
ignore everything under a metadata tag as the Specification currently
suggests.

>> ps Sorry for the ELEMENT stuff I did actually try not to type it, but
>> couldn't stop myself...
> 
> 
> Nah c'mon I know it's just to bother me ;)
> 
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 16:34:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:26 GMT