Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-devel - Re: [cc-devel] protocol relative/https urls on Creative Commons pages

cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dan Mills <dan AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Nathan Kinkade <nkinkade AT creativecommons.org>
  • Cc: "cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org developers" <cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-devel] protocol relative/https urls on Creative Commons pages
  • Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:50:32 -0700

Hey all,

Good discussion.

After my prodding earlier about separating the licenses from the way the licenses are marked up, styled, and presented, Kat has been leading a discussion on the affiliates list about establishing what exactly is OK to change (in principle) and what isn't.

IMO, protocol-relative URLs are a good example of a case where we should change the license files. However, we need:

1) a solid understanding of where the boundaries are (discussion Kat is leading), and
2) a clear process that ensures the licenses don't change in the legal sense when we make those changes.

Ideally we would also have some technical safeguards to make this less risky (such as scripts that take minimally marked up license text and output the licenses for presentation), but we can make do with human checks in (2) instead.

Dan

On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Nathan Kinkade wrote:

Diane is on this list and can weight in if necessary, but I believe
that it was lately established (at least informally so) that such
changes would be acceptable, since it only modifies the underlying
markup and not the actual license in any way.

Nathan

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:
Thanks Nathan K for clarifying that.

On Nathan Y's remark on changes to the legalcode-pages. I don't think that making them more secure (i.e. more accessible for people who browse the web certain ways) would change anything in the legal code. We shouldn't confuse significant changes to the actual texts or appearance to the these document to keeping up to date with technology. We are actually changing the appearance of these pages by not changing them, as they won't load properly on user's browser with more strict security guidelines..

I would be we wholly in favour of refactoring all ~750 legalcode pages if that would mean that they would be accessible over more secure connections. Don't get me wrong, I believe we should never change the actual wording or layout of these documents but in 20 years these documents need still be visible to the common browser and protocols at that time. If we can now identify a trend of more https (or spdy) traffic than I think we should enable and add those protocols to these pages.

@Dan, as this will be under your supervision in a couple of weeks, what are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Maarten

--
Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra




On Jun 24, 2013, at 19:04 , Nathan Kinkade <nkinkade AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <mz AT kl.nl> wrote:
Refactor all links from a form like


to


I don't know if that notation is backward compatible with most browsers
though.

It is. We use it protocol-relative URLs in a number of places already.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
cc-devel mailing list




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page