[uf-discuss] rel="license" and copyright

[Chris Messina]

I don't think that makes any sense. You should make positive
assertions about data, not negative ones... and why bother with a
"not-a-license" schema? There's far too many negatives... as in
licenses that it wouldn't be.... I think we ought only deal with what
things *are* and not what they *aren't*.

Chris

On 11/17/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Andy,
>
> On 11/17/06, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I'm starting to look at using rel="license". Am I right in thing that it
> > can be used to indicate that a page is NOT available under a license, as
> > well as for those that are? For instance:
> >
> >         This page is <a rel="license"
> >         href="http://www.example.com/copyright>copyright Example Ltd.
> >         2006</a> and may not be reproduced.
>
> I think that to indicate that something is NOT available under a
> certain license you'd really need something like a "norel" attribute.
> As in...
>
> <a norel="license" href="...">...</a>
>
> Or... you'd need a negative of the "license" token... maybe
> "nolicense" to use with the "rel" attribute... as in...
>
> <a rel="nolicense" href="...">...</a>
>
>
> See ya
>
> --
>     Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
>
>     charles @ reptile.ca
>     supercanadian @ gmail.com
>
>     developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen Provocateur &
  Open Source Ambassador-at-Large
Work: http://citizenagency.com
Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog
Cell: 412 225-1051
Skype: factoryjoe
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private