On Sep 6, 2006, at 7:51 AM, James M Snell wrote:
The problem with specifying a per-feed default license is that
there is
currently no way of explicitly indicating that an entry does not
have a
license or that any particular entry should not inherit the default
feed-level license.
With respect to atom:rights (from RFC 4287 section 4.2.10):
If an atom:entry element does not contain an atom:rights element,
then the atom:rights element of the containing atom:feed element, if
present, is considered to apply to the entry.
Thus, at the entry level, <atom:rights /> would (certainly ought to!)
detach a feed level atom:rights element from the entry without
replacing it with anything. With <link rel="license"..., I'm not
sure how you'd do the same thing. Is it possible to specify a null
URI? <link rel="license" href="" /> points to the in-scope xml:base
URI, right? Perhaps the specification could define a "null license"
URI.
With respect to the issue of aggregate feeds, I had thought that the
existence of an atom:source element at the entry level blocked any
"inheritance" of the feed metadata, but looking at RFC 4287, I don't
see that explicitly stated. Certainly if atom:source contains
atom:rights, then that element overrides the feed-level atom:rights
of the aggregate feed, but if neither atom:source nor atom:entry
contains an atom:rights element, what then? Perhaps in that case,
the aggregator should add <atom:rights /> as a child of atom:source
(I'd think that preferable to adding it as a child of atom:entry).
On Sep 6, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
So, here's the proposal:
- Use <link rel="license"/> for entry licenses -- either on the feed
level, setting a default analogous to what atom:rights does, or on
the element level.
- Introduce <link rel="collection-license"/> (or whatever else you
find suitable) for licenses about the collection, to be used only
on the feed level.
If there's a @rel="license" at the feed level, but no rel="collection-
license", does the @rel="license" also become a "collection-
license"? (People who don't read the spec would probably think so).
If there is no license for the collection, but one wishes to specify
a default license for the entries, a "null license" would once again
be useful.
Antone
