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

Re: [SVG 1.2] Other notes.

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:20:08 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <bqi3ii$63j$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@expway.fr> wrote in message

> 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 http://web.resource.org/cc/
> 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

No, No, No, that would be a disaster, then my perfectly marked up
information saying anyone can use this, would get a warning, also my SVG
annotations of an example CC document would also fall foul.  Either the UA
needs to fully understand all of the RDF, or it should not do it (if I
subClass/Property the CC stuff, I would still expect it to work...)

Broken RDF parsing doesn't help anything.

> 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
> http://creativecommons.org/license/ and pasting the results into their
> SVG (or better, having something similar in authoring tools).

Rubbish...  No-one's gonna understand it, it'll also likely be less binding
than a simple statement, as the CC licences are currently country bound,
relying on certain countries laws and are not enforceable outside,  CC is
not a magic bullet here, I think it achieves less than a statement.   Your
wizard can do the same to create a human readable copyright comment.

  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.

They've always been able to do that, no need for the spec to encourage it,
especially not broken, lets pretend this RDF isn't really RDF at all
approach you're advocating here.

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 08:21:27 UTC

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