Re: [SVG 1.2] Other notes.

Thomas DeWeese wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> 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. 
>    I guess the question is how much RDF parsing do you have to
> do to figure out if there is CC data or a part description or credit
> card info or anything else that anyone can imagine putting in the
> metadata tag of SVG.  Or perhaps CC data embeded in a credit card
> charge embedded in a Bill of lading etc.

If all you're planning for is to display a simple warning that the 
content holds a copyright policy, pretty much all you need to do is to 
look to see if the document contains the 
namespace. You could refine that a bit, but at the simplest level that's 
all that's needed. I remain fairly convinced that that is a very small step.

I'm not sure about what you mean concercing credit card information. In 
this context CC refers to Creative Commons, so there might be a slight 
misunderstanding ;)

>    What I think is being asked for in a very roundabout manner is
> a 'bozo bit'.  A simple yes/no flag in the content that says 'allow
> save'/'don't allow save'.  This could be a simple attribute (perhaps
> two, one for view and  one for save ) on the root SVG element and the
> SVG  specification could require User agents to respond to them
> (similar to how they are required to defeature in the face of 
> panZoom="disable").

Graphic artists I have talked to (which I'll admit is just a tiny 
non-scientific sample) don't trust bozo bits (and they shouldn't, as 
they don't make intent very clear, in addition to being a fairly ugly hack).

They have concerns about making full quality works available, don't 
quite realise that SWF does the exact same thing (because getting at the 
content requires some indirection) and seemed happier to know that 
inserting a code snipppet gave them legal protection.

Just putting in a little text in a comment at the top is just as 
binding, but not as simple as filling out the wizard at and pasting the results into their 
SVG (or better, having something similar in authoring tools).

>    If this is what people want please don't force implementors to
> muck with the contents of metadata tags and all of RDF.  Let
> the author express the intent directly to the UA.  Then if authors
> want to put in the RDF they can but UA's can continue to blithely
> ignore everything under a metadata tag as the Specification currently
> suggests.

And that is what the current 1.2 draft suggests. Anything inside 
metadata is still ignorable, but UAs MAY notice that there is some CC 
data in there and make it available to the user. And the simplest 
degrees of doing so do not require mucking about with RDF, only a little 
XML hackery.

Robin Berjon

Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 16:51:23 UTC