On 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some points on this...
#1: I think we should choose a different name other than "no_enclosure". (I'm guessing you're thinking of rel-nofollow. But that choice of name goes against the HTML specs.) The name that's choosen should be a noun.
What's a good noun for "not part of this"? Or "not mine"? ("external"? "borrowed-object"?) Anyone have any suggestions?
#2: If we're applying this to an <object> or <embed> element, then we can NOT use the "rel" attribute. Since neither of these HTML elements has that attribute. (And yes, I know that the <embed>, <object>, <img>, and <form> elements should have this. I tried arguing for them in the WHATWG to get this added to HTML5... but I couldn't seem to get support for it.)
The attribute we do have to add semantics is the "class" attribute. (And I know, most people are probably thinking something like... wait, "class" is for applying stylesheets . That's actually a very common misconception. The "class" attribute is alot like the "rel" and "rev" attributes in that it expresses sematics as well.)
So...
It might be something like:
(Where "abc" would be replaced by whatever we decide to call this thing.)
I think that this really goes beyond the Creative Commons. (This is something I've been thinking about for quite a while.) We need to be able to expresses "contracts"... or more specifically, "permissions", "restrictions", and "requirements" for "contracts" in machine readable form. (And we'd need the "legal framework" to make it "safe". So that people who do things based on these "permissions", "restrictions", and "requirements" don't have to worry about getting sued. This would be similar to what has been done by the Creative Commons with their set of licenses.)
With all that, things can be automated and streamlined.
So,... you'd have ways of saying... "You can do X". "You can NOT do Y". "You MUST do Z". and "You MUST NOT do W".
You'd then need to come up with a way of expressing this in Semantic HTML, XML, RDF, etc.
A machine that understands this could even have overrides for "inaliable rights" in a country. (For example, if a "contract" like this said, "You MUST NOT breath"... in most countries [as I understand it] that would legally be allowed to be ignored and the rest of the "rules" of the contract would apply. Well, assuming nothing else in it violated inaliable rights of the parties involved.)
Some other notes, you may want to have those "X", "Y", "Z", "W" be a URLs. The URL would point something like the Creative Common deeds. There would be a "normal English" description of it, as well as "Legalleze". Software would be pre-programmed to auto-understand commonly agreed upon set of these things. (Kind of like the way RSS readers auto-understand various RSS extensions.)
As new ones come out and become popular they would gain adoption. If the software gets something it doesn't yet understand, it could ask the user (in some way) what they want to do. (Maybe by popping up a window. And letting them somehow look at the document.) I could even ask the user how they want to handle this "condition" in the future. (So they don't have to be asked again.)
Did that make sense? (I know I've kind of rushed the explaination.)
See ya
[...]So, let's discuss.
pros and cons to these two thoughts please....
1*
Semantic HTML is used to specify a media link that should be used as an RSS enclosure in the form of rel=enclosure. see here:
http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-enclosure
Their are cases when hotlinking to media in a blog post etc where the author does not want to re-syndicate that media in RSS as a downloadable enclosure (attached file).
So, should their be an opposing rel=no_enclosure so services like feedburner and blog engines etc can easily skip that media excluding it from the RSS channel?
Some points on this...
#1: I think we should choose a different name other than "no_enclosure". (I'm guessing you're thinking of rel-nofollow. But that choice of name goes against the HTML specs.) The name that's choosen should be a noun.
What's a good noun for "not part of this"? Or "not mine"? ("external"? "borrowed-object"?) Anyone have any suggestions?
#2: If we're applying this to an <object> or <embed> element, then we can NOT use the "rel" attribute. Since neither of these HTML elements has that attribute. (And yes, I know that the <embed>, <object>, <img>, and <form> elements should have this. I tried arguing for them in the WHATWG to get this added to HTML5... but I couldn't seem to get support for it.)
The attribute we do have to add semantics is the "class" attribute. (And I know, most people are probably thinking something like... wait, "class" is for applying stylesheets . That's actually a very common misconception. The "class" attribute is alot like the "rel" and "rev" attributes in that it expresses sematics as well.)
So...
It might be something like:
<object class="abc" type="application/ogg" data="">
(Where "abc" would be replaced by whatever we decide to call this thing.)
2*
Should Licenses such as Creative Commons provide optional clauses that state whether or not the media can be re-hosted without opt-in and re-distributed from that host?
Would this streamline how media travels within all of the mediaspheres on the Internet?
I think that this really goes beyond the Creative Commons. (This is something I've been thinking about for quite a while.) We need to be able to expresses "contracts"... or more specifically, "permissions", "restrictions", and "requirements" for "contracts" in machine readable form. (And we'd need the "legal framework" to make it "safe". So that people who do things based on these "permissions", "restrictions", and "requirements" don't have to worry about getting sued. This would be similar to what has been done by the Creative Commons with their set of licenses.)
With all that, things can be automated and streamlined.
So,... you'd have ways of saying... "You can do X". "You can NOT do Y". "You MUST do Z". and "You MUST NOT do W".
A machine that understands this could even have overrides for "inaliable rights" in a country. (For example, if a "contract" like this said, "You MUST NOT breath"... in most countries [as I understand it] that would legally be allowed to be ignored and the rest of the "rules" of the contract would apply. Well, assuming nothing else in it violated inaliable rights of the parties involved.)
Some other notes, you may want to have those "X", "Y", "Z", "W" be a URLs. The URL would point something like the Creative Common deeds. There would be a "normal English" description of it, as well as "Legalleze". Software would be pre-programmed to auto-understand commonly agreed upon set of these things. (Kind of like the way RSS readers auto-understand various RSS extensions.)
As new ones come out and become popular they would gain adoption. If the software gets something it doesn't yet understand, it could ask the user (in some way) what they want to do. (Maybe by popping up a window. And letting them somehow look at the document.) I could even ask the user how they want to handle this "condition" in the future. (So they don't have to be asked again.)
Did that make sense? (I know I've kind of rushed the explaination.)
See ya
Thanks,
sullOn 4/10/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hello Michael,
I think you are on the right track. What you're alluding to is using Semantic HTML.
(Some of you may have heard the term "Micformat" before. A "Microformat" is basically just Semantic HTML with a Specification.)
Although, just to nit-pick :-) ... It should be class="no_enclosure" (instead of rel="no_enclosure") if you're putting this on an <object> or <embed> element. (I won't bore you with the details of "why" unless you ask to hear it.)
Semantic HTML has the advantage that this is machine readable. That way the whole process can be automated. (And not just by your vlogging software, but by many many other kinds of software too. Which produces all sorts of social implications. Which are hopefully "good".)
See yaOn 4/10/06, Michael Sullivan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:hmmm, maybe we should have a rel=no_enclosure too ;-)
On 4/10/06, Devlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On 4/10/06, Anne Walk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:hi Charles,
<snip>one really interesting thing that happened during the whole veoh debacle that i hadn't considered and am considering now is that media feeds might pick up the vids and attribute them to me if they are "hot linked". that's not good, i think. i am rethinking how i do it now. my concern has always been that an extra step to view the video will prevent many readers/viewers from watching the videos, which would be a shame. there is so much excellent content out there!
I think the main problem is that when media is embedded (please correct me if I am wrong) it is picked up in the feed as an enclosure...I guess a thumbnail would be safe.
Not sure that your plugin does Enric? Does the media file have an enclosure tag?
On 4/10/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hello,
My question is.... Is it Fair Use to link directly to a vlog's video?
(People would probably call this "hot linking".)
NOTE: I'm NOT talking about re-hosting or transcoding. This would be getting the video straight from the vloggers site.
And more importantly, if it isn't Fair Use, should it be? And an equally important question, if it is Fair Use, should it not be?
Also (assuming you think it is OK to "hot link" to videos), what would be the "best" ways to do it?...
- Is it OK to use the HTML <a> element to link directly to the video? (Either llinking in text or a thumbnail or a flipbook of the video?)
- Is it OK to use the HTML <embed> or <object> elements to link directly to the video? This would essentially be playing video on inside of someone else's page.
- Should the "hotlinker" add any extra data along with the "hotlinking"? (Like the title, description, a linkback, etc)
- How does all this relate to (RSS and Atom) feeds?
- How does all this relate to semantic HTML usage?
- How does all this relate to SMIL usage?
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
