Difference between revisions of "Talk:License HTML Code"
(Invalid HTML in CC BY 3.0) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
If the code I added is erroneous, could someone provide the valid HTML that should be added to mark up CC-licensed (X)HTML documents and put it on the [[License_HTML_Code]] page? | If the code I added is erroneous, could someone provide the valid HTML that should be added to mark up CC-licensed (X)HTML documents and put it on the [[License_HTML_Code]] page? | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Where on cc.org did you find this? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Using <code>link</code> and/or RDF/XML-embedded-in-HTML-comments are not recommended (the latter was at one point). Updating this article in a second... [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Actually, I found it on wiki.creativecommons.org, in the source for the [[Developer]] and [[FAQ]] pages. Thanks for the link to the right way to do it--the code I got from the license generation process on creativecommons.org first time around included a span with invalid attributes, but I just went through it again and that no longer seems to be happening. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Invalid HTML in licences== | ||
| + | |||
| + | I hope this is an appropriate place to raise this issue. The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ CC BY 3.0] licence is not well-formed XML. See for example the </span> tag on line 281 which is never opened. Obviously the namespace declarations mean it'll never be valid XHTML, but most parsers don't care about this. However, mismatched tags is a problem if the licence is to be machine readable, as I understand it is supposed to be. Many of the standard tools, such are Redland raptor, that extract RDF from the embedded RDFa fail with non-well-formed XML, which means that applications using them cannot automatically discover the rights permitted and prohibited by the licence. [[User:Ras52|Ras52]] 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:57, 3 January 2012
I couldn't find this information—that is, what exactly one should add to HTML to make its licensing machine-readable—but found this code on creativecommons.org itself. Note that if the desired code is simply that which is generated by the license selection process, this should still be made available as an alternative since the license selection process provides code that doesn't validate as XHTML or HTML unless you strip out those parts referring to the license resource links (which means it's not really machine-readable anymore).
If the code I added is erroneous, could someone provide the valid HTML that should be added to mark up CC-licensed (X)HTML documents and put it on the License_HTML_Code page?
Where on cc.org did you find this?
Using link and/or RDF/XML-embedded-in-HTML-comments are not recommended (the latter was at one point). Updating this article in a second... Mike Linksvayer 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I found it on wiki.creativecommons.org, in the source for the Developer and FAQ pages. Thanks for the link to the right way to do it--the code I got from the license generation process on creativecommons.org first time around included a span with invalid attributes, but I just went through it again and that no longer seems to be happening.
Invalid HTML in licences
I hope this is an appropriate place to raise this issue. The CC BY 3.0 licence is not well-formed XML. See for example the tag on line 281 which is never opened. Obviously the namespace declarations mean it'll never be valid XHTML, but most parsers don't care about this. However, mismatched tags is a problem if the licence is to be machine readable, as I understand it is supposed to be. Many of the standard tools, such are Redland raptor, that extract RDF from the embedded RDFa fail with non-well-formed XML, which means that applications using them cannot automatically discover the rights permitted and prohibited by the licence. Ras52 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
