W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2009

[whatwg] Helping people seaching for content filtered by license

From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:37:15 -0400
Message-ID: <fbb7c5df0906100737m7a63dad9l5cd911b7fc75fc0c@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:

...

>> What about the case where you have a JS-based viewer, and so when the
>> user clicks a photo, they do not go to a separate page, but instead
>> get a pop-up viewer?
>
> That is indeed a valid concern. ?The obvious way to address it is to
> have a permalink on the JS popup, which will send you to an individual
> page with that content where the license info is located. ?In this
> scenario the JS viewer is merely a convenience, allowing you to view
> the pictures without a page refresh, rather than a necessity.
> Hopefully that's true anyway, for accessibility reasons!
>
> Thus you get the best of both worlds - machine-readable data on the
> individual pages, and you can still put human-readable license info on
> the JS popup.

But why can't one have "the best of both worlds" without having to go
to separate pages for each photo?

>> Surely that's common, and it's entirely feasible that different photos
>> on the page would have different licenses.
>
> I don't think it's that common for different photos on the page to
> have different licenses (and preventing that scenario is just one more
> reason to fight license proliferation), but even if true it's covered
> by the above.

Depends what you mean by "covered". I'd say the RDFa examples of this
"cover" it better in the sense that they don't impose an arbitrary
restriction that the license only applies to a single object (or I
suppose group of objects).

>> Or another case: a weblog that includes third-party photo content
>> (could be your own photos too). You want to label your blog text with
>> one license, and the linked photos with another.
>
> This is indeed not covered by @rel=license. ?Is it necessary to embed
> the separate licensing information for the pictures in a
> machine-readable way? ?It seems that just putting a human-readable
> license link on each picture would work pretty well.

This isn't really my area, but I could imagine an organization (in
particular) wanting to include machine-readable license links (a la
CC).

Bruce
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 07:37:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:13 UTC