Difference between revisions of "Talk:Exif"
Lazlo Nibble (talk | contribs) |
(because) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Why does the recommendation suggest embedding a URL to a third-party (non-creativecommons.org) site that mentions the image's license, rather than suggesting the inclusion of an explicit license statement? This seems like an unnecessary indirection/dependency; if the URL goes offline for some reason, there's no way to tell how the image is licensed. It also reduces the ability of search engines to detect how a "discovered" image is licensed; with an explicit license statement embedded in the image metadata the search engine can determine the license independently; if the license is only referenced via a URL the search engine has to be able to parse all the possible ways the license could be displayed on the referenced page. | Why does the recommendation suggest embedding a URL to a third-party (non-creativecommons.org) site that mentions the image's license, rather than suggesting the inclusion of an explicit license statement? This seems like an unnecessary indirection/dependency; if the URL goes offline for some reason, there's no way to tell how the image is licensed. It also reduces the ability of search engines to detect how a "discovered" image is licensed; with an explicit license statement embedded in the image metadata the search engine can determine the license independently; if the license is only referenced via a URL the search engine has to be able to parse all the possible ways the license could be displayed on the referenced page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == because == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Anyone can put a license url in an image. There's no reason to believe it. See [[Nonweb Tagging]]. Lazlo Nibble!? Wow. [[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:37, 16 November 2006
Why does the recommendation suggest embedding a URL to a third-party (non-creativecommons.org) site that mentions the image's license, rather than suggesting the inclusion of an explicit license statement? This seems like an unnecessary indirection/dependency; if the URL goes offline for some reason, there's no way to tell how the image is licensed. It also reduces the ability of search engines to detect how a "discovered" image is licensed; with an explicit license statement embedded in the image metadata the search engine can determine the license independently; if the license is only referenced via a URL the search engine has to be able to parse all the possible ways the license could be displayed on the referenced page.
because
Anyone can put a license url in an image. There's no reason to believe it. See Nonweb Tagging. Lazlo Nibble!? Wow. Mike Linksvayer 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
