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

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On 11/17/06, Chris Messina <chris.messina at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that makes any sense. You should make positive
> assertions about data, not negative ones...

Why?

Andy is in fact trying to make a negative assertion, of the "license" token.

> and why bother with a
> "not-a-license" schema? There's far too many negatives... as in
> licenses that it wouldn't be....

Andy might want to name one (or a few) specific licenses that it is not.

> I think we ought only deal with what things *are* and not what they *aren't*.

That's fine, but they you need to put the "negative" into the token...
as in "nolicense" or something like that.


See ya

>
> 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/