W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [whatwg] Creative Commons Rights Expression Language

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:59:37 -0700
Message-ID: <48AF1AA9.8060300@adida.net>
To: "Bonner, Matt" <matt.bonner@hp.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>

Bonner, Matt wrote:
>> Not that you have to take the time, of course, I'm sure you're busy.
>> But if you're going to spend time arguing with us, then please argue
>> with us about what we actually need, not about what you think we need.
> Is that the only point of discussion?

No, it definitely isn't if we're talking about how RDFa fits into HTML5.
But I think you're the one who brought that up, I was just explaining
where CC is coming from :)

> Well, if you used <link> instead of <a>,

<link> doesn't support DRY (the user doesn't see the link to the
license), and it's only in the head, so we can't pass out a small chunk
of HTML that folks can embed in their page.

That's explained in the ccREL paper, under the principles of DRY and

> Well, section 3.1 of the Submission says:
>   "A publisher who wishes to license a Work under a Creative
>   Commons license must, at a minimum, provide one RDF triple that
>   specifies the value of the Work's license property"

That's the onus on the *publisher*, to provide at a *minimum*.

But we have specific publishers, e.g. some pharma and biotech companies,
that want to publish a *lot* more, including genomic data, protein
information, etc... using RDFa and CC licensing.

A simpler example that appears clearly in the ccREL paper:
cc:attributionName, and cc:attributionURL.

So, while publishers don't *have* to publish those, they are much
encouraged to, and so the tools should support it. Ideally the tools
will include HTML5.

> Perhaps it would be better to start over and engage the HTML5 
> community on your requirements, what makes sense and proceed from there?

Sure, although again I got roped into a conversation that *you* started :)

> Well, for example, HTML5 provides the data-* attributes. Could ccREL
> use those instead?

As mentioned in my previous email and by others, that really doesn't fit
the definition of the data-* attributes, and it's sub-optimal from the
point of view that this is highly HTML5-specific, which would break with
our established work in XHTML1.1.

If HTML5 can tell browsers to ignore data-* attributes, I think it can
probably choose to ignore a few more attributes, right?

Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 20:00:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:32 UTC