[ACCEPTED]-Semantic HTML markup for a copyright notice-semantic-markup
Thanks to Owen for pointing me in the direction 6 of RDFa, I think I've got the solution now:
<div id="footer" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <p id="copyright" property="dc:rights">© <span property="dc:dateCopyrighted">2008</span> <span property="dc:publisher">Example Corporation</span> </p> </div>
Depending 5 on the situation, it might be better to 4 use dc:creator instead of dc:publisher. From 3 the Dublin Core web site:
If the Creator and Publisher are the same, do not repeat the name in the Publisher area. If the nature of the responsibility is ambiguous, the recommended practice is to use Publisher for organizations, and Creator for individuals. In cases of lesser or ambiguous responsibility, other than creation, use Contributor.
I will also be 2 adding a meta tag to my head element for 1 search engines that don't support RDFa yet.
<meta name="copyright" content="© 2008 Example Corporation" />
Have you taken a look at RDFa? It was recently accepted as a 8 W3C recommendation. I mention that just 7 in case you want to take a look at other 6 aspects of semantic structure it recommends. The 5 licensing part is the same as the format 4 you currently use. (So in that sense to 3 answer your question, I think you're handling 2 it correctly, assuming people adopt RDFa)
For 1 lazy people who don't want to click links:
// RDFa recomendation and rel=license microformat <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"> a Creative Commons License </a>
Probably the most semantically correct way 1 to mark it up is with a definition list.
<dl id="copyright"> <dt title="Copyright">©</dt> <dd>2008 Example Corporation</dd> </dl>
Why not use the CC format, but indicate 5 that no rights are granted?
In any case, the 4 main problem with the use of the CC formats 3 is that people do not clearly identify which 2 elements of the webpage that they appear 1 on they apply to.
More Related questions