> Also following up on ISSUE-110:
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/110 >
> We resolved it as follows:
> "we considered @src in both subject and object positions, and resolved
> that the current situation - it's equivalent to @about - is more
> useful to authors."
> Is this an acceptable explanation to you?
Well, as I argued, I still don’t consider it that much more useful to
justify the confusion that them being treated differently causes, but I
can accept the resolution, if that is what the working group agreed upon.
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Another way to look at this is that since <img> cannot have any child
elements, it becomes a kind of 'terminal' in the processing. This
means that if we make @src the object, then the image itself becomes
the final node in a graph. By making it a subject, then we get the
possibility of adding one more statement. (Of course we can add more
'longhand', but not via chaining.)
In the case of standalone images, where we merely want to put the
license onto an image (perhaps in a page of Flickr search results),
then there is not so much to choose between the subject version and
the object version, although I would say that asking authors to use
@rev is a little quirky:
But where the two solutions diverge is if we want to do something with
these images that we've added licenses to...we can't. If we drop one
of these into some other mark-up, the only thing we can do is state a
relationship with the license itself, which is generally going to be
So, not only would we be asking authors to use @rev in a quirky
way--if @src were an object--but we'd also be asking them to add extra
mark-up, if they wanted to establish a relationship between that image
and something else: