- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:51:28 -0500
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Bruce D'Arcus<bdarcus at gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Hopefully you have a separate page for each photo *anyway*. If you don't - that is, if you only have a thumbnails page, and then a js-based fullsize viewer - your page is pretty crappy in terms of accessibility and discoverability. Given that of course we all value making our pages accessible ^_^, the problem is already solved. The js-based viewer is merely a convenience for those that can use it, and license information can be embedded on the individual pages. >>> 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). The restriction is far from arbitrary - it makes it dead-simple. Any solution that allows you to assign different licenses to various pieces of content on a single page in a machine-readable way is necessarily more complex. It's not apparent in these examples that anything more complex is necessary. Regardless, though, the situation is *indeed* covered. The fact that you can imagine a slightly different solution doesn't change the fact that existing markup is *a* solution, at least for any halfway decent site design. >>> 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). Can you illustrate this more plainly? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 07:51:28 UTC