Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

[BjornW <burobjorn AT gmail.com>]

I agree with Maarten. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

grtz
BjornW


On 18-04-13 15:12, Maarten Zeinstra wrote:
> Hi Kat,
>
> We've talked about this issue briefly in London. I am glad to see that
> what you told me then is reflected in the request for comments, I did
> understand you correctly.
>
> However that also means that I keep to my initial conclusions. This is
> definitely not a good idea. I've put my thoughts down below, so we can
> break down the discussion into its subparts
>
> 1. Both markdown and HTML (HyperText Markup Language) are markup
> languages, it seems silly to convert one markup language into another. 
> 2. Adding markdown to the infrastructure creates extra dependancies on
> a conversion between markdown and HTML, one that will probably takes
> more skill and time than doing these licenses immediately in html
> 3. Markdown is not a standard and we cannot rely on it to stay the
> same, HTML is.
> 4. Markdown basically is short hand for HTML, again why would we use it?
>
> Finally I've expected the cc-developers list to be consulted first
> before the affiliates were consulted. I think the members on this list
> are the more tech savvy and have experience in implementing various
> technologies. This seems like a very top-down idea with possible good
> intention but with a general lack of understanding the consequences of
> a decision like this.
>
> As a sidenote, is CC really willing to invest tech time into fixing
> something that is not broken instead of working on actual requests
> like adding more metadata-languages and working on the 40 or so unread
> bug reports?
>
> @Greg, Jonas, Bjorn: what are your ideas on this?
>
> Best,
>
> Maarten
> *
>
> *
> -- 
> Kennisland *
> *
> *
> | www.kennisland.nl <http://www.kennisland.nl> | t +31205756720 | m
> +31643053919 | @mzeinstra
> *
> *
> *
>
>
> *
> *
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2013, at 24:57 , Kat Walsh <kat AT creativecommons.org
> <mailto:kat AT creativecommons.org>> wrote:
>
>> Greetings! I think this is my first time posting to this list, so as
>> a brief introduction for those who haven't seen me flooding their
>> inboxes yet, I've been working in the CC legal team since last June.
>> One of the things I'm focusing on is the legal impact of CC's tech
>> projects, so you're likely to see more from me in the future.
>>
>> As we are preparing for the publication of 4.0, there are a few
>> implementation details that we would like your feedback on. The rest
>> of this message was also posted to the affiliates, and some of the
>> questions and descriptions are directed primarily toward them;
>> however, your input both as a development community and as people
>> aware of how CC's tools are being used would be really valuable on
>> some of these questions.
>>
>> ----
>>
>> The first part of this message describes an idea we're considering
>> about changing the way the legal code is maintained, and asking how
>> (if it all) it would affect you. In the second part, we want to know
>> which parts of the published licenses you expect never to change
>> after publication.
>>
>> CC has promised that once the legal code of a license has been
>> published, it will never change, and this is a practice we will
>> continue with 4.0. Doing this allows people to rely on a single
>> version, without having to monitor for changes that may affect their
>> understanding of the license. 
>>
>> Currently, when a license is published, the official version is the
>> HTML file as published on creativecommons.org
>> <http://creativecommons.org/>. For example, for BY-SA-3.0 Unported,
>> the official version is located at
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode. We are
>> considering an idea to separate the legal code from the non-legal
>> code elements of the web page more cleanly, and have the part that is
>> the legal code itself be in a separate file that will never change,
>> while the HTML version may change elements (such as page navigation)
>> that are not actually part of the legal code.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Ultimately, the experience of almost all users of the license would
>> be exactly the same: they would see a CC license applied to a work,
>> and click through to a page that looks exactly like the current page.
>> The experience for affiliates would differ. During the translation
>> process, affiliates and translation teams would be editing the legal
>> code in its new format, rather than an HTML file. (The markup would
>> probably be simple, but it would still be different.) CC HQ would
>> also be editing and commenting on these files. Additionally, informed
>> license users who wished to rely on the unchanging legal code would
>> be able to find it and know that it would always remain stable.
>>
>> In general, CC doesn't want to disrupt existing processes without
>> reasons that justify that change, and we'd like to hear whether this
>> would be true for you. Some pros and cons we've identified:
>>
>> *provides a unchanging file containing all of the essential elements
>> of the legal code 
>> *makes a clean separation between the actual legal code and the way
>> it is displayed
>> *adds some complexity to the development process
>> *introduces some changes to the editing and translation processes,
>> including a different format for the legal code
>>
>> Questions we'd like feedback on: 
>> 1. Do you think this would be worthwhile?
>> 2. Would it make translation and editing more difficult for you and
>> your teams?
>>
>> The second part of this, which is important for us whether or not we
>> pursue the first proposal, is that we would like some input on what,
>> exactly, must stay the same, and what may change. For example, it
>> should be clear that the actual text contained in the license is part
>> of the legal code, and therefore it must be kept exactly as is. It
>> should also be uncontroversial that the navigational elements on the
>> page (directing viewers back to the deed, for example) are not part
>> of the legal code, and may be changed.
>>
>> However, we would like to start thinking about elements that are less
>> certain--and in particular, we want to be able to say for certain
>> what is part of the legal code and what is not, and we need to settle
>> that question in collaboration with you, as community expectations
>> around our commitment not to change the legal code are extremely
>> important. (For example, is it allowable to add navigation boxes to
>> legal code pages that link to other translations of that legal code?
>> As translations of CC0 are progressing, this is not a purely
>> theoretical question!)
>>
>> Do you already have expectations about what is part of the legal code
>> and cannot change, and what is not? Which elements do you think
>> should be able to change, and which should not?
>>
>> We really appreciate your input on these questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kat
>>
>> -- 
>> Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons
>> IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
>> Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/
>> CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
>> please consult your attorney.
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-devel mailing list
>> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org <mailto:cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-devel mailing list
> cc-devel AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel


-- 

met vriendelijke groet,
Bjorn Wijers

* b u r o b j o r n .nl *
digitaal vakmanschap | digital craftsmanship

Werkdagen:
Van maandag t/m donderdag vanaf 10:00 
Vrijdag is voor experimenteren en eigen projecten.

Postbus 14145
3508 SE Utrecht
The Netherlands

tel: +31 6 49 74 78 70
http://www.burobjorn.nl