On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:11:02PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > Author (dc:creator) (freeform)
> >
> > Btw, I've been shifting SVG::Metadata over to use 'creator' instead of
> > 'author', to be consistent with the RDF. I'll keep author as an alias
> > to creator, though.
>
> Do you mean the tag or name on the dialog? I was using the "dc:creator"
> tag in the XML, but the name "Author" in the dialog, since I thought it
> was more sensible.
I mean the function call in SVG::Metadata, as well as the tag. I also
originally thought that "Author" would be clearer, but since the RDF has
fields for creator, owner, and publisher, I thought it may be safer to
match terms exactly.
You may be right that using Author in the Inkscape dialog would be more
sensible, I just wanted to mention that I'd changed, just in case you
had picked Author because I'd been using it for the clipart.
> > > Keywords (dc:subject) (freeform)
> >
> > I've been thinking about whether we should use subject for the keywords,
> > or do something different... Ideally I'd rather have each keyword be a
> > separate XML element, instead of a freeform string, so we can maintain
> > some consistency over how it is parsed. What do you think? I haven't
> > checked the schema to see if something like this is provided, but
> > probably should... We could of course add it ourselves via a custom
> > namespace, but I'd kind of like to avoid that if at all possible.
>
> Well, it seems like the only place it could go without creating a new
> namespace. According to the spec, they suggest using a limited
> vocabulary.
Hmm... Well, certainly I could handle keywords by splitting the subject
on common delimiters like space, comma, etc. Feels kludgy though...
But probably better than adding a new namespace. I suppose we could do
that initially, and see how well it works, and if we need more, add
something more sophisticated later.
> Well, that's an _element_ of the license, so I'd rather not. Maybe
> "CC", but if someone isn't familiar with it. I think the "best" route
> would be just a simple "Creative Commons" license, and then when that's
> selected a radio-button section becomes selectable, and that has the
> various combinations there.
Mmm, that's a good idea.
> > It would probably be wise to load the pull-down contents from the
> > preferences.xml file, so users can override the settings when they need
> > to.
>
> Well, I'm not sure about this since the the selected license impacts the
> <License> tag, and that needs to be programmatic or do some kind of XML
> merge if people are adding their own stuff. I was just going to blow
> away the entire License tree and put in our own if someone changed the
> setting away from "Custom".
Ah, gotcha.
Bryce
|
