Hi,
On 05/19/2012 10:04 PM, Thomas Schraitle wrote:
It seems we need to distinguish between the two use cases:
1. Express a license with the appropriate DocBook element. A license
is usually subdivided into several portions.
Ok, yes, I understand, in your case it is a larger block than just an
info and maybe multiple of them. I would still tend to also try to use
simpler model for known license.
It would be nice to make an on-line repository, so that the author
just can include it.
<appendix>
<title>License information</title>
<para>The tool YYY is licensed under GPL 2.0</para>
<xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude";
href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.docbook.xml"; />
<para>The library ZZZ is licensed under GPL 3.0</para>
<xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude";
href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.docbook.xml"; />
</appendix>
Marked up once by a team?, used many times. IF someone don't like
the markup he can always patch it.
2. Add meta information about licenses for images, vides, audio, or text.
Maybe role="license:gpl-2.0" is better than adding a new tag.
But tools and stylesheets need more work then? To parse role.
That could also be used on any tag.
<para role="license:CC-BY-SA">
Wikipedia is a free, collaboratively edited and multilingual Internet
encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.
</para>
Well, just a short quote might not need a license..
I would be interested to know how other people deal with this problem.
I know, it looks very verbose in comparision to your model. :)
My thought was just that authors are not always XML (or license)
experts, that is why I rather keep that syntax very easy to use.
Just because you want to add a small image in the document you do
not want to learn rdf. (or mark up license text..)
Sincerely,
Fredrik Unger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
