On Aug 23, 2008, at 03:28, Ben Adida wrote:
Bonner, Matt wrote:
Not at all what we're doing. A lot of the data will be in HTML to
begin with.
Such as?
cc:attributionName, cc:attributionURL, dc:title, dc:type,
dc:date, ....
If DRY is what you are aiming for, you should use HTML <title> instead
of dc:title and HTTP Content-Type instead of dc:type when talking
about the HTML document itself. (I think linked resources should talk
for themselves.)
In order to talk about the HTML document itself, you could register http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName
and http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL as a <meta> name
and a <link> rel respectively. (That wouldn't be DRY though.) You
could also define that if those are absent, http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionName
defaults to <meta name=author> and http://creativecommons.org/ns#attributionURL
to the URL of the document.
The (original) definition of dc:date is so bad that it's useless.
(It's confusing a datatype with a field identifier.)
Why would the average user understand better how to put ccREL data in
HTML pages than elsewhere?
Because we hand them a chunk of HTML they can copy-and-paste into
their
HTML page, blog post, MySpace page, etc.. Much easier than anything I
know of for media files.
That seems like you are proposing that humans (via text editor) deal
with the syntax instead of tools hiding it all.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
