I agree. Let the address do the work. Its much better that way because its not messed up by local concerns about space & wording.
Part of my issue, I think, has been discussion that makes it like WE need to solve the issue. We do NOT need to solve the issue. Its already solved 9.6 times out of ten. Its much more about linkage than anything, I think. J. On Monday, 19 June 2017 23:47:42 UTC+2, Thomas Elmiger wrote: > > Have a look at how Wikipedia deals with this. In an article you see just > an image: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_Portable > > If you click on an image you see author (, publisher) and license > immediately without having to open the image (jpg, png, wathever) in a > special software or in source code view: > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot_Portable#/media/File%3AApricot_portable.png > > I think this is how license and copyright owner should be presented. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0b14dcbd-a5db-4e0c-b6cc-00e4f8d2637a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
