Re: Is not better using role="copyright" or <link rel="copyright"> element?

On 06/05/07, Rene Saarsoo <nene@triin.net> wrote:
>
>
> Diego La Monica wrote:
> >
> > Rene Saarsoo:
> >
> >>    <copyright license="http://www.microsoft.com/">
> >>      (c) 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
> >>    </copyright>
> >
> > Diego La Monica:
> > I think that the ways we could follow are two: using of role attribute
> (i
> > prefere this) or using the <link> tag in the head.
>
> It's strange that you say you prefere the role attribute, and
> then go on explaining all about <link rel="copyright">.
> Also you didn't even mention, _why_ you would prefere role
> attribute over separate <copyright> element. Anyway...


Diego La Monica:
Other people proposed and explained about role attribute[3.*]. But at the
end of this message I will re-explain why i prefer that attribute against
other solutions.

Renee Saarsoo:

> The problem with <link rel="copyright"> is that, well, we have
> had it for quite some time available, but who uses it?
> Practically none [1].
>

>
Diego La Monica:
Right, none use <link rel="copyright"> element, you're sayng true. But
rel="copyright" already exists/is allowed for that element?

Renee Saarsoo:

> On the other hand, there are tons of pages, who use visible
> copyright notices. I can't really imagine, why would anyone
> want an invisible copyright notice? If it's not visible, then
> for average Joe who doesn't peek into page source, it's
> completely of no use.
>
> And <link> doesn't help at all when you want to mark up
> your visible copyright notice.


Diego La Monica:
Indeed i prefer role attribute that, just added to the correct copyright
information already visible on the page, makes his works correctly, without
forcing webmasters/authors to changing css rules. And role attribute i
trsust that was created for this purpose: each object on the page has a
specific role [2]. There will be banner, navigation menu, contents,
copyright informations, etc.

And, as wrote Philip Taylor [4] in a recente message: [ "Class", in classic
HTML, has no pre-defined semantics ] that means that we mixed semantic with
no semantic informations.
Let's take a look on behavior of authoring tool. Dreamweaver (one for all)
creates class names that not are semantically meaningful. If in one of the
property panes will be a field named "role" i think that there are 3 kind of
people:
- the one that leaves it blank
- the one that fill it with semantic structured information (html:banner,
html:example .... )
- and the one that fill it with some strange form of semantic (for example:
"elements that serve the search box") much similar to a comment.

I think this is the right way.


[1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-role-20061113/#s_role_module_attributes
[3.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0541.html
[3.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0556.html
[3.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0592.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0600.html

> --
> Rene Saarsoo
>
>


-- 
Diego La Monica
Web: programmazione, standards, accessibilità e 2.0
Brainbench certified for RDBMS Concepts (transcript ID # 6653550)
W3C HTML WG IWA/HWG Member
Web Skill Profiles WG Member ( http://skillprofiles.eu )
phone +390571464992 - mobile +393337235382
MSN Messenger: d.lamonica@tosend.it
Email: me@diegolamonica.info
Skype: diego.la.monica - ICQ #: 249-460-264
Web: http://diegolamonica.info