- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:06:23 +0200
- To: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Cc: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Ben Adida' <ben@adida.net>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Bonner, Matt'" <matt.bonner@hp.com>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 'Henri Sivonen' <hsivonen@iki.fi>, www-archive@w3.org
Kristof Zelechovski wrote: > If metadata are useless, it is fine not to use them. However, they should > never go into content; the browser could display them as document properties > on demand instead in order that humans could keep them up to date. The > reason is that having metadata in content results in circular dependency: > content is licensed by a license that is contained in the content, in > particular the license statement itself is licensed by the same license. > This is illogical. > Chris If I license my homepage at http://danbri.org/ as CC-sharealike noncommercial, I'm talking as much about the HTML head of the document as about the HTML body. I can express this license statement in markup. You're saying that it would be illogical for this markup to be part of the HTML body section of the document. If that's the case, can you spell out the logical argument in more detail? I don't understand why you consider it 'illogical'. Which logic? cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 10:07:04 UTC