- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:52:29 -0700
- To: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- CC: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Bonner, Matt'" <matt.bonner@hp.com>, 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 'Henri Sivonen' <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-archive@w3.org
Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > Why do you call inline metadata standalone? Because there's no reuse of the HTML content for metadata purposes. "Standalone" is probably a poor word choice, I admit. I mean "no DRY," which I guess is "too much RY." > I can see two ways to bind the metadata to the markup: > 1. For elements with nonempty content, you can embed this script into the > element. > 2.The IMG elements are not subject to CC licenses because they do not > constitute main content but they serve as replacements for various user > interface elements. However, if you insist, you could have <IMG > license="your XML">. That would make a viable solution. I hope you'll take a look at the ccREL paper to see that we need more than just a license statement. > It seems your main problem is that you cannot put the licenses into > proprietary formats and you want to put the burden on HTML, seeking to put > the data as close to the reference to the describing document as possible > and hoping that that will make the license "relevant". I do not like this > catch-and-patch attitude at all. Not at all what we're doing. A lot of the data will be in HTML to begin with. And since HTML is the main carrier of all information, it also makes perfect sense to add descriptive data for images, PDFs, etc.. in the HTML. Because if you expect to put it in the actual media files... well then that's certainly an instance of "the tools will save us" because there's no way the average user will know how to do that *at all*. -Ben
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 23:53:13 UTC