rel-license-issues
From Microformats
| Table of contents |
[edit]
rel-license issues
[edit]
Template
Please use this format (copy and paste this to the end of the list to add your issues; replace ~~~ with an external link if preferred) to report issues or feedback:
<div class="vevent">
* {{OpenIssue}} <span class="summary vcard"><span class="dtstart">2008-MM-DD</span> raised by <span class="fn">~~~</span></span>
<div class="description">
*# Here is the first issue/feedback I have.
*# Here is the second issue/feedback I have.
</div>
</div>
[edit]
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 (http://gmpg.org/xfn/) 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 (http://gmpg.org/xfn/) 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.
- open issue! 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 (http://flickr.com/photos/mauve_porno_rod/4458687/), 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 defined in the HTML spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links)) and an <a> element with rel='license'.
- Issue 3: the Dublin Core (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/) '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 (http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/), 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'?
- open issue! 2006-07-19 raised by DrErnie
- Now that RFC 4946 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4946.txt) specifies rel-license for Atom, should we adopt that as a normative reference?
- open issue! 2008-01-26 raised by Adollar28cents
- How would I specify that there is no license for something, i.e. All Rights Reserved. There is no Creative Commons machine-readable license that says as much, but I want to support and use this microformat.
- My own solution is that when a URL exists for the license to use both a <LINK> element and an <A> element to link to the license using rel="license DC.rights.license" (i.e. both the rel-license microformat plus Dubin Core), and when no such URL exists, to use a <META> element with name="DC.rights.license" and a content attribute containing a human readable licence description, such as content="All rights reserved." (The phrase "All rights reserved" also appears in the body of the page. Example usage (http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/15/gnocchi-allamatriciana/) TobyInk 01:53, 18 Feb 2008 (PST)
- How would I specify that there is no license for something, i.e. All Rights Reserved. There is no Creative Commons machine-readable license that says as much, but I want to support and use this microformat.
[edit]
