Kim Haase wrote: > Oh, good, Jean. Thanks. That is the part of the issue that is a blocker, > correct?
yes, only 4 files seemed to fall through the cracks. As soon as I fix it in the trunk, I'll merge the change to the 10.2 branch, then downgrade from "blocker". I'm suddenly having trouble building, but posted a question in a separate thread. > The empty copyright string (item 1) is a nuisance but not a crime, I > believe. I agree. > I can't figure out, though, if the "copyright" and "DC.rights.owner" > meta tags in the HTML output (item 3) are merely unnecessary and > incorrect (2005!) or a serious problem. It would create confusion for anyone wanting to reuse a given generated file as "source". In my opinion, a copyright does not belong as a meta tag in the generate source for these files. -jean > Kim > > Jean T. Anderson wrote: > >> I'm working on this item right now: >> >> 2) Some source files have the old style copyright in the header that is >> not in compliance with http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. For >> example, see src/ref/rrefsistabssyscolperms.dita >> >> I thought I'd give a heads up in case anyone else was about to dive in. >> >> -jean
