- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:28:52 -0700
- To: "Bonner, Matt" <matt.bonner@hp.com>
- CC: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 'Henri Sivonen' <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Bonner, Matt wrote: >> Not at all what we're doing. A lot of the data will be in HTML to >> begin with. > > Such as? cc:attributionName, cc:attributionURL, dc:title, dc:type, dc:date, .... Think of a paper listed at a scientific journal. All of this information is on the web page in HTML, we're just proposing that they add the metadata. > Again, I'm confused. The ccREL Submission proposes XMP for PDF and > other media types (section 6). Yes, that's correct, if you can do it with XMP for media files, go for it, that's our recommendation. But if that data is going to be in the HTML anyways (e.g. an abstract page for a scientific paper), then RDFa also applies. In general, the tools for XMP are quite a bit harder to use than those for HTML. > Why would the average user understand better how to put ccREL data in > HTML pages than elsewhere? Because we hand them a chunk of HTML they can copy-and-paste into their HTML page, blog post, MySpace page, etc.. Much easier than anything I know of for media files. -Ben
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2008 00:29:30 UTC