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

Re: [SVG 1.2] Other notes.

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:17:13 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <bqdq9h$3mb$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr> wrote in message
> Your idea is that people expected to have tooltips because they read the
> MAY in "the user-agent MAY display tooltips" as a MUST, and ergo that
> the same thing will happen to the copyright thing. I think that people
> expected tooltips because they're used to having tooltips in their web
> browser. So I don't think that the current text will create false
> expectations.

I regard that MAY is mirepresentative, and no user agents have done so,
makes it a bad thing for the spec to suggest - it's not been proven to be
sensible behaviour or anything else, there's no implementation experience
and it creates false expectations.

> Implementators that want people to put SVG content on the Web at large
> (and who here doesn't) are encouraged to display the copyright or at
> least a warning that the file may be copyrighted when the user views the
> source because we've had feedback from graphic artists that while
> they've grown used to publishing low quality rasters on the Web they're
> concerned that with the high quality provided by SVG people might steal
> their work. Displaying something, even if just a generic warning when
> some CC data is detected, is likely to assuage such concerns.

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

> And yes there are still issues with CC, but I think you'll agree that
> it's better to point to them and to expect them to fix those issues than
> to ask the SVG WG to come up with a workable copyrighting system :)

I've not suggested that, I suggested an element containing text content that
does exactly what is described of it, just like the TITLE element or the
proposed HINT element, or ...   They're just as irrelevant RDF in METADATA
could do those too, why are they special? but copyright not.

Anyway I'm not that bothered, just don't see it ever being implemented
properly (ie actually understanding RDF) so fear it's bad to have it in.


ps Sorry for the ELEMENT stuff I did actually try not to type it, but
couldn't stop myself...
Received on Sunday, 30 November 2003 17:17:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:57 UTC