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