David Gerard wrote: That'd be a bit hard, since we don't usually provide a link to the license with the image. Using a <link type="license" on image pages would be more appropiate for our usage.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:46 PM, David Gerard&lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [[RDFa]] is a standard. It isn't one we currently use. It would be possible to use it if we didn't care about validating using any validator I know of. (I believe HTML 5+RDFa has been specified by someone, but it's not part of HTML 5 itself, and HTML 5 validators will reject it.) HTML 5 has its own microdata syntax, but it was very recently invented, it's controversial, I'm not sure anyone supports it, and I'm not sure it's stable. I'm pretty sure <link rel=license> on the image page should work fine for everyone. It's part of HTML 5 <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#link-type-license>, and I think it predates HTML 5. Note, though, that it's very vague about what exactly the license info applies to. I don't know if anyone would be able to usefully figure out which parts of the page the license applies without special-casing MediaWiki, or worse yet, Wikipedia. There have been proposals to allow more specific license metadata to be supported by HTML 5, but they've been rejected in the past. I'd have to review the discussions to recall exactly why the above wasn't viewed as a good enough use-case.

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Platonides&lt;Platonides(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Aha, I didn't know about that. That would be very useful indeed. (And uck, don't link to the one-page version. I can only read that tolerably using wget | less.)