[uf-new] Re: hAudio Issue D6: 2008-01-10 hAudio notes inconsistency

[Martin McEvoy]

Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Hello
>
>
> RE: 2008-01-10 hAudio notes inconsistency [1]
>
> Raised by Andy Mabbett in 
> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2008-January/011344.html 
>
>
> The "Notes" section of the hAudio spec says "By marking up audio 
> content with the hAudio microformat, the expectation is communicated 
> that information about the content MAY be indexed. This has no impact 
> on the copyright of the content itself which the publisher may 
> explicitly specify using rel-license as specified above.". However, 
> that is the first and only reference to rel-license on the page.

sorry: 
[http://microformats.org/wiki/haudio-issues#D6:_2008-01-10_hAudio_notes_inconsistency]

> I initially closed this issue marking it as a typing error rel-licence 
> is not part of the specification, but the  question still remains 
> "should the hAudio Specification include rel-licence"  I have 
> re-opened this issue in order that this issue be addressed correctly.
>
> Proposed resolution:
>
> The  hAudio Specification SHOULD include the rel-license microformat.
>
> 1, because rel-licence already implicitly exists in haudio it
> just hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> 2, I DO think it is valuable to know which audio files I can freely 
> download no conditions, and ones that may have certain conditions that 
> must be met before I can download this file.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Martin McEvoy
>
>
>
>