- From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:37:51 -0400
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
Fair enough. The source should be protected, so it needs (I would think) a "cooked" copyright statement -- all necessary text present and accounted for in the flesh. I can add an element for this. The problem would come in if you wanted to ensure that each form of output is protected; I don't think you can. Even if you have an element with the copyright statement in it, you can never guarantee that it will be displayed, or displayed without harmful further processing. Eve At 12:14 PM 4/2/99 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >I haven't thought it all through, but here's one >thing I know: *DON'T* omit the copyright statement >from the source, assuming it'll get put in by the >stylesheet. > >Also: *DON'T* treat the copyright stuff as a boilerplate >issue. THINK HARD about it, every time you share >a copy with anybody, if not every time you hit the >save button. > >See also: the W3C IPR notice >http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice >and the related FAQ >http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ.html > > >"Eve L. Maler" wrote: >> >> Paul Grosso sent me an XMLspec comment in private correspondence this week, >> and it started what we thought was an interesting discussion. >> >> The issue was whether a copyright element should be added to the DTD, so >> that a copyright statement could be supplied in fairly "cooked" form so >> that it would appear in the various outputs. I suggested that a stylesheet >> might be able to output the copyright statement, if it were pretty much >> boilerplate. >[...] > > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C >http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >
Received on Sunday, 4 April 1999 12:38:20 UTC