rel-license predates Atom and thus the reference should go the other direction.
That being said, iterations on rel-license and any work on new licensing formats should reference Atom license as an existing format and take its semantics into consideration. Tantek -----Original Message----- From: Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:54:09 To: For discussion of new microformats.<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [uf-new] rel=license scoping and hAudio Manu Sporny wrote: > Just to be clear, I wasn't attempting to propose/introduce/suggest a new > format. I was attempting to state that we'd need "something else", > something other than rel="license" if we are to address this issue for > Microformats. Perhaps As Dr Ernie suggested in 2006[1] "Now that RFC 4946 [2] specifies rel-license for Atom, should we adopt that as a normative reference?" Its a Good thought it would almost eliminate the rel="licence" issue for good. [...] "2. The "license" Link Relation [2] The "license" link relation can be used to associate licenses with a feed or entry. Feed and entry elements MAY contain any number of "license" link relations but MUST NOT contain more than one with the same combination of href and type attribute values. The IRI specified by the link's href attribute SHOULD be dereferenceable to return a representation of the license. The license representation MAY be machine readable." [....] Just a thought :-) [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-license-issues+ACM-Issues [2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4946.html Thanks Martin McEvoy _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new _______________________________________________ microformats-new mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
