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

RE: [whatwg] Creative Commons Rights Expression Language

From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:11:25 +0200
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>
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>
Message-ID: <FB536DAAADF645D98187B0D67AF22235@POCZTOWIEC>

The following sentence directly contains metadata about itself:
"This sentence is false."
It can be neither true nor false.  It is a known logical paradox.
OTOH, if the metadata are in the HEAD and describe the content in the BODY,
such a paradox can never occur.
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 12:06 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Ben Adida'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'Bonner, Matt'; 'Tab
Atkins Jr.'; 'Henri Sivonen'; www-archive@w3.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Creative Commons Rights Expression Language

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 10:12:35 UTC

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