W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > December 2003

Re: [SVG 1.2] Other notes.

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:20:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3FCBA2A5.40203@expway.fr>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Jim Ley wrote:
> "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr> wrote in message
>>Your idea is that people expected to have tooltips because they read the
>>MAY in "the user-agent MAY display tooltips" as a MUST, and ergo that
>>the same thing will happen to the copyright thing. I think that people
>>expected tooltips because they're used to having tooltips in their web
>>browser. So I don't think that the current text will create false
> I regard that MAY is mirepresentative, and no user agents have done so,
> makes it a bad thing for the spec to suggest - it's not been proven to be
> sensible behaviour or anything else, there's no implementation experience
> and it creates false expectations.

I'm unsure which MAY you refer to. If it's the tooltips MAY, then Batik 
has done it. If it's the CC MAY then it's a touch too early to lament 
lack of implementation experience. We can encourage implementers to at 
least display a warning on view source when CC data is present, which 
isn't much to ask for. Heck, given control over contextual menus it's 
easy for the user to enforce that warning in a generic manner (using the 
CC data a script can find in the DOM), independently of implementer 
choices. And it encourages usage of SemWeb technologies, if ever so 
slightly, which is a good thing in any circumstance.

> Sure, I appreciate the concerns, just I don't think RDF CC addresses those
> concerns as UA's will not be able to implement it cheaply enough, and if we
> do want such behaviour, a copyright element does all the same good at a much
> lower cost.  Suggesting explicit licensing info via RDF is good, I'll
> certainly be using it at some point

So what you would want is text that encourages explicit RDF licensing 
but without any suggested possible UA behaviour? Why not since the 
embedded licensing is legally binding, but then why not suggest that 
implementors walk that extra small step of doing it at least very partially?

> ps Sorry for the ELEMENT stuff I did actually try not to type it, but
> couldn't stop myself...

Nah c'mon I know it's just to bother me ;)

Robin Berjon
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 15:20:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:53:59 UTC