- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:20:53 +0100
- 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 >>expectations. > > 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