Difference between revisions of "rel-license-issues"

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(parts of a page, link vs. a, Dublin Core)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
*# ''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.
 
*# ''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 [http://gmpg.org/xfn/ XFN home page] for example, which uses both a <code>&lt;link rel="copyright&gt;</code> 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 [http://gmpg.org/xfn/ XFN home page] for example, which uses both a <code>&lt;link rel="copyright&gt;</code> in the header to reference a local copyright statement, and within that, links to a Creative Commons license with rel="license".
 +
 +
* 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 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 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 15:21, 7 April 2006

Issues

  • 2005-06-21 raised by Hixie
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  • 2005-12-09 raised by Kenny Heaton
    1. 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".
  • 2006-04-07 raised by Evan
    1. 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.
    2. 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'.
    3. 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'?