Right, although in the second case, you don't even need the xmlns:cc attribute.
Nathan On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Wendy Bossons <[email protected]> wrote: > So then either of the following are correct (first example is from the given > w3 page), but the unprefixed form is safer in the sense that it's more > likely to be understood by a wide range of search engines . . . > > <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > rel="cc:license" > href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/";> > Creative Commons License > </a> > > or > > <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > rel="license" > href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/";> > Creative Commons License > </a> > > > > Wendy Bossons > Web Developer > Contact Information: > [email protected] > 617-253-0770 > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Nathan Yergler wrote: > > license is one of the reserved values in RDFa, as it's defined in the > XHTML namespace; see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#relValues for a > list of these values. It's implicit that license is in the XHTML > namespace, and any conforming RDFa processor will return a fully > qualified URI in that namespace. > > You could do cc:license, but these days it's declared to be the same > of xhtml:license. Additionally, it appears that some search engines > do not use conforming processors to index CC licensed content, instead > looking for rel="license", so using a different namespace will impact > how they index your content. > > Nathan > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Wendy Bossons <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why is the metainformation attribute, rel, never prefixed when it references > > "license"? > > Example: > > <a rel="license" > > href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/";>......</a> > > Would it be incorrect to rephrase the above as: > > <a rel="cc:license" xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > > href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/....";>.......</a> > > The reason I ask is the CC LIcense searchable as metadata within the > > application I'm working on. If it is to do that, I believe the license > > metadata should follow the same pattern as other metadata, such as > > <span xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/...."; href="http://purl.org/dc/dmcitype/"; > > rel="dc:type">work</span> > > > ..\Wendy > > > Wendy Bossons > > Web Developer > > Contact Information: > > [email protected] > > 617-253-0770 > > > > > > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Nathan Yergler wrote: > > Hi Wendy, > > The two blocks have (had) slightly different purposes; the first one > > describes a work with a particular license. The latter only describes > > the license. > > That said, we no longer recommend embedding either in HTML pages. We > > previously recommended embedding the former block in an HTML comment. > > While this approach had advantages over other available approaches > > when we developed it, it still has lots of problems, including over > > verbosity, invisibility to many parsers, and lack of standards > > compliance. We're now recommending the use of RDFa to describe the > > license of a page. See > > http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license-code=by for an > > example of the HTML+RDFa needed to describe the license of a work, and > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ccREL for more details. > > Let me know if you have any questions. > > Nathan > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Wendy Bossons <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the current recommendation on using the rdf that is returned by > > the > > CC issue call? > > For example, there are two rdf blocks in the response. Is one for > > backward > > compatibility? How do you recommend using the response, e.g. if embedding > > the rdf in the page, should one or both of the rdf blocks be used? > > Example from response document: > > ... > > <rdf> > > <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"; > > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; > > xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#";> > > <Work rdf:about=""> > > <license > > rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/"/> > > </Work> > > <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/";> > > <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/> > > <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/> > > <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/> > > <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution"/> > > <permits > > rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/> > > </License> > > </rdf:RDF> > > </rdf> > > <licenserdf> > > <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"; > > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";> > > <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/";> > > <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/> > > <permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/> > > <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Notice"/> > > <requires rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Attribution"/> > > <permits > > rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/> > > </License> > > </rdf:RDF> > > </licenserdf> > > Wendy Bossons > > Web Developer > > Contact Information: > > [email protected] > > 617-253-0770 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cc-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
