rel-license-issues: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(parts of a page, link vs. a, Dublin Core) |
(link to link types for reference) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* 2006-04-07 raised by [[User:Evan|Evan]] | * 2006-04-07 raised by [[User:Evan|Evan]] | ||
*# ''Issue 1: It's not clear how to associate a license with part of a page, such as an image or embedded object in the page, or a single news entry on a news page. A typical use-case would be a [http://flickr.com/photos/mauve_porno_rod/4458687/ Flickr page], for which the image is licensed under a CC license but the page itself is not.'' | *# ''Issue 1: It's not clear how to associate a license with part of a page, such as an image or embedded object in the page, or a single news entry on a news page. A typical use-case would be a [http://flickr.com/photos/mauve_porno_rod/4458687/ Flickr page], for which the image is licensed under a CC license but the page itself is not.'' | ||
*# ''Issue 2: there's not a clear explanation of how/when to use a <link> element with rel='copyright' and an <a> element with rel='license'.'' | *# ''Issue 2: there's not a clear explanation of how/when to use a <link> element with rel='copyright' (as definied in the [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links HTML spec]) and an <a> element with rel='license'.'' | ||
*# ''Issue 3: the [http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ Dublin Core] 'license' element seems to have the exact same semantics as this standard. There's an [http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/ encoding standard for Dublin Core in <meta> and <link> elements], which seems like it would be an easy extension to rel attributes in <a> elements. Can we find some compatibility between the Dublin Core 'license' and rel='license'?'' | *# ''Issue 3: the [http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ Dublin Core] 'license' element seems to have the exact same semantics as this standard. There's an [http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/ encoding standard for Dublin Core in <meta> and <link> elements], which seems like it would be an easy extension to rel attributes in <a> elements. Can we find some compatibility between the Dublin Core 'license' and rel='license'?'' | ||
Revision as of 15:23, 7 April 2006
Issues
- 2005-06-21 raised by Hixie
- Issue H-1: This specification is lacking a user agent conformance section. There's basically nothing that says how rel=license must be handled.
- ACCEPTED. The specification should have a conformance section describing what UAs should do.
- Issue H-2: What's the point of rel="license"?
- ACCEPTED. The specification should provide better documentation explaining this (it tries to now, but obviously failed for this particular reader). In particular rel="license" enables a content author to explicitly express in a machine readable way what license(s) the content is licensed under, in particular, by using licenses that reside at external URLs, commonly maintained by various open source and related organizations.
- Issue H-1: This specification is lacking a user agent conformance section. There's basically nothing that says how rel=license must be handled.
- 2005-12-09 raised by Kenny Heaton
- There needs to be an explicit explanation of when to use rel-license which "Indicates that the referred resource is a license for the referring page.", and when to use the W3C defined copyright link type which "Refers to a copyright statement for the current document." since copyright and licensing are similar concepts and can be confused.
- ACCEPTED. MOVE TO FAQ. The HTML 4.01 spec defines the 'copyright' rel value as: "Refers to a copyright statement for the current document." Indeed this is very similar to the license provision, however not exactly the same. Often documents have a their own local copyright statement which includes links to one or more licenses. See the XFN home page for example, which uses both a
<link rel="copyright>in the header to reference a local copyright statement, and within that, links to a Creative Commons license with rel="license".
- ACCEPTED. MOVE TO FAQ. The HTML 4.01 spec defines the 'copyright' rel value as: "Refers to a copyright statement for the current document." Indeed this is very similar to the license provision, however not exactly the same. Often documents have a their own local copyright statement which includes links to one or more licenses. See the XFN home page for example, which uses both a
- There needs to be an explicit explanation of when to use rel-license which "Indicates that the referred resource is a license for the referring page.", and when to use the W3C defined copyright link type which "Refers to a copyright statement for the current document." since copyright and licensing are similar concepts and can be confused.
- 2006-04-07 raised by Evan
- Issue 1: It's not clear how to associate a license with part of a page, such as an image or embedded object in the page, or a single news entry on a news page. A typical use-case would be a Flickr page, for which the image is licensed under a CC license but the page itself is not.
- Issue 2: there's not a clear explanation of how/when to use a <link> element with rel='copyright' (as definied in the HTML spec) and an <a> element with rel='license'.
- Issue 3: the Dublin Core 'license' element seems to have the exact same semantics as this standard. There's an encoding standard for Dublin Core in <meta> and <link> elements, which seems like it would be an easy extension to rel attributes in <a> elements. Can we find some compatibility between the Dublin Core 'license' and rel='license'?