Well actually ideally it would exactly the same document, but with different css and no js, right?
Cheers, Maarten -- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra On Apr 18, 2013, at 20:01 , Dan Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Nathan Yergler wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Mike Linksvayer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Kat Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> If we were to do this, the legal code would be maintained in a separate >>>> file >>>> from the HTML, in a format that maintained all of the essential >>>> information. >>>> For example, formatting such as bold or italic text that has legal >>>> significance, section headings, etc., would all be considered essential and >>>> part of the legal code itself. This legal code file would likely be >>>> maintained using Markdown[1], or something similar to it. >>>> >>>> The web page with the licenses would be generated from this legal code >>>> file, >>>> by converting it to HTML and adding non-legal code formatting, text, and >>>> navigational elements. However, since the legal code file would not have to >>>> be touched, it would be impossible to accidentally make a change to the >>>> legal code itself by changing other elements of the page. >>> >>> I may have suggested something like this long ago, but I'd probably >>> stick to HTML as the canonical version now. That canonical HTML should >>> be as minimal as possible, just including enough structure and >>> annotation to make it possible for external CSS and Javascript to make >>> look pretty and dynamically add further annotation in a variety of >>> contexts, and for plain text to be generated without manual post >>> processing. >> >> While you could continue to use javascript, etc for injecting that >> sort of customization, I think the burden for creating and maintaining >> that sort of code is greater than that for a script that takes a >> template document and runs in the actual content. > > I very much agree. Client-side JS absolutely has its place, and I have no > problems with using it (heavily, if needed), but it's not some sort of escape > hatch for modifying pages without modifying the page that is served up. > That's just obfuscation, and it's harder to maintain. > >> Regardless of the markup format for the "immutable" document, I think >> my primary concern is making it easy for a software agent to "follow >> its nose" from the license URI to the immutable legalcode. (I >> *thought* there was follow-your-nose markup from the deed to the >> legalcode, but I don't see it now, so maybe I'm mis-remembering.) >> Figuring out what the right predicate is shouldn't be super difficult, >> and would fit in the existing ecosystem. > > Were you thinking of a link? "The license on this page was generated from > [link]" ? > >> >> For what it's worth, we added support for "stripped down" legalcode in >> 2010 (I think). For example, >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode-plain. That >> file is generated from the static HTML, and having >> markdown/restructured text/something less expressive would have made >> life a little easier. > > Hah. > > Yeah, so that plain format could be close to being acceptable as a *source* > if we really want to use HTML (modulo the stylesheet and JS tags). > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > 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
