Re: Markup proposal


Kris.re <Kris.re@...>
 

The only thing is that it’s less succinct (slightly greater editing load) and likely to be forgotten/left out, limiting its usefulness.

 

From: Gary O'Neall [mailto:gary@...]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:48
To: Kris.re <Kris.re@...>; 'Sam Ellis' <Sam.Ellis@...>; 'SPDX-legal' <spdx-legal@...>; spdx-tech@...
Subject: RE: Markup proposal

 

I like the idea of an attribute type in the element optional (e.g. <optional type=...).  I believe it would allow tools writers as well as humans to distinguish an optional field easily and also allow for the type to be specified.

 

Gary

 

From: spdx-legal-bounces@... [mailto:spdx-legal-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Kris.re
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 8:03 AM
To: Sam Ellis; 'SPDX-legal'; spdx-tech@...
Subject: RE: Markup proposal

 

Basically, <optional> is fine for all the optional sections, and could even be annotated if desired (e.g. <optional type=”footer”>). A potential advantage to specifying the “kind” of optional section, though, is the ability to distinguish matching rules.

 

For example, the matching rules for a copyright line/section can be stricter because we know its general form, and so when parsing the markup to generate a match directive, <copyright> might be applied differently than, say, <title>. <footer> doesn’t really have this benefit, but if there’s already a convention of identifying the main “chunks”, it makes some aesthetic sense, and this information could even be used to help other use-cases such as formatting for html.

 

It amounts to, it doesn’t add extra load to maintain, but it does provide a channel of information that could be useful. No reason to throw away information.

 

Kris

 

From: Sam Ellis [mailto:Sam.Ellis@...]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:23
To: Kris.re <Kris.re@...>; 'SPDX-legal' <spdx-legal@...>; spdx-tech@...
Subject: RE: Markup proposal

 

<license identifier=”SuchAndSo”>
  <title>The Such and So License</title>
  <copyright>Copyright © 2015 Foo Bars</copyright>


  <body>License text ….</body>

  <footer>How to apply this license: ….</footer>
</license>

 

May I ask what is the benefit of separating body and footer? I can appreciate that licenses sometimes come without the “How to apply this license” text; if the reason is to allow the footer to be optional, could that be done simply by using <optional>. Note that I do not object to <footer>, just trying to understand if there is a benefit I have missed.

 


-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782

Join Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org to automatically receive all group messages.