W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Copyright issue

From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 17:24:02 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: <spec-prod@w3.org>
I added the copyright element in late 1999 precisely to address the 
source/output copyright concern, though I don't know if anyone ever used 
it.  It contains %hdr.mix;, which resolves to 
(%p.class;|%list.class;|%ednote.class;)+.  I assumed that this would 
accommodate, say, a paragraph of copyight statement information just 
fine.  In what way does it not cover what the pubrules want?

Also, the notice element has been in there forever, and this could be used 
for copyright notices.  (I can't remember what the original motivation was 
for adding it.)


At 02:45 PM 5/17/01 -0500, Paul Grosso wrote:
>Eve helps maintain the xmlspec DTD (she is subscribed to spec-prod).
>My understanding is that the latest xmlspec DTD allows for putting
>the copyright info into the document.  I guess Norm should pull the
>code that auto-generates the copyright info in the stylesheet.
>As far as &copy; and such, this is XML.  Why don't we use numeric
>character entities rather than defining these entities in the DTD?
>(I'm not opposed to declaring them in the DTD, but I'm not sure I
>see the point.)
>I would rather avoid having to have declarations in the internal
>subset.  After all, the idea of the xmlspec DTD is to be the common
>DTD for these things, so it would be nice to put all that's necessary
>into the DTD and avoid modifying the internal subset.
>At 10:23 2001 05 17 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> >Norm, I've been using my own XSLT stylesheet for xmlspec for a while 
> instead of the official one, mostly because early beta versions of MSXML3 
> were missing features that prevented the "official" stylesheet from 
> running.  But I ran into a problem trying to get the XInclude last call 
> published - the stylesheet added boilerplate.  Besides the fact that this 
> boilerplate was outdated according to pubrules, Dom objected to the lack 
> of copyright info in the XML source itself.  We pulled the XML version 
> because we didn't have a timely solution to these problems.
> >
> >I'm now updating to use xmlspec.xsl, and find it has the same problems:
> >1) xmlspec.dtd has a <copyright> element but it doesn't allow the markup 
> required by pubrules.  The pubrules should provide xmlspec boilerplate as 
> well as html boilerplate.
> >2) xmlspec.xsl overwrites this markup with boilerplate.
> >3) the xmlspec.xsl boilerplate is obsolete.  This means lots of specs 
> (most notably the XML Schema recs) have obsolete copyrights in them.
> >4) xmlspec.xsl embeds the copyright boilerplate within the header 
> template so it's difficult to override it.
> >5) xmlspec.dtd doesn't have an equivalent to <abbr>.
> >6) xmlspec.dtd doesn't allow markup (specifically <abbr>) inside <loc>.
> >7) &copy; and &reg; aren't defined in xmlspec.dtd, although arguably all 
> instances should use them.
> >
> >All these problems can be solved in the document's internal subset and 
> an overriding stylesheet (which I've just done for the next XInclude 
> version, samples available), but since each of these problems affects 
> every XML-sourced spec published on the W3C site, it would be nice to 
> extend xmlspec.dtd and fix xmlspec.xsl in a central location.
> >
> >Would you be willing to work with me and the W3C pub team to resolve 
> these issues so we can start posting XML version of our specs again?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >

Eve Maler                                             +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development  eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 17:21:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:08 UTC