- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:44:05 -0700
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:12 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: > >What do you personally think about Tom Lord's proposal? > > Which? "simple wrapper format...adds a place to put, > say, some human-friendly XHTML that conveys licensing > information...could also be used for images, audio files, > and so forth."? It's an interesting idea, though I'd > caution providing COMPUTER-readable licensing information > is more important right now (you can dump human-readable > text in the copyright field in a font, but it doesn't help > in determining allowed usage today; even most freeware fonts > have a copyright. Fonts are a more critical problem today, > in my mind - due to Pandora's box not being fully open yet, > and the aforementioned fonts-are-a-software-tool-unlike-images issue. Please check out RDFa mark-up and ccREL ontology. A human friendly XHTML "About" attachment to a font file can contain machine-readable license information. People have worked for years with W3C to bring that about. > Trying to carry licensing information to instruct proper > usage is like putting up signs saying whether the water > is potable or not - it doesn't stop people from drinking > it, but it does encourage doing the right thing. Right. And that is a generic, useful thing to do for all media types. It is technically simpler to do it for all media types in a general way. -t
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 00:31:52 UTC