Thanks for
bringing this up, Bob.
Â
I agree with
Scott about allowing legalnotice outside of info â I think
the nature of legal notices has changed a good deal with the
proliferation of software products (and, for that matter,
hardware products) that include multiple components,
frequently from different sources, integrated into a single
solution. This is particularly important with open source
software, which frequently requires presenting the license
as part of the requirements to use the software.
Â
I was thinking
that the content of a section-like thing inside a
legalnotice would be essentially the same as a the current
legalnotice, with the addition of whatever the section
element is called. Leganotice does not currently exclude
all technical inlines (program listing elements and elements
associated with screens are included) but I thought it would
make sense to retain the current content model. Since the
content would be different from a normal section, I would
lean towards it being a different element, since I think
there are usability issues with elements that change the
legal content based on ancestry of the element. I think
presenting it as âthis is a legal section so it can have
whatever you had in the original legal notice, but broken up
into a more reasonable structureâ makes sense and will be
easy to explain. I have seen a number of legal notices that
include screens, so I feel that preserving the current model
is reasonable (I think I remember one with a code fragment
but I may be imagining that or confusing it with a README â
I see a lot of both README and license information since I
work on tools to analyzer open source software that is
included in HPE products).
Â
Thanks for
chiming in, Scott. Good comments.
Â
Regards,
Larry Rowland
Â
Â
I think there are times where we would want
the legalnotice content as metadata, and also times when the
notice needs to be included in the publication. Based on this,
I think we do need to allow legalnotice outside of info.
Â
For legalsection, I would think we would
want to strip out the technical inlines like:
|programlisting|programlistingco|
ÂÂÂ
screen|screenco|screenshot|synopsis|cmdsynopsis|funcsynopsis|
ÂÂÂ
classsynopsis|fieldsynopsis|constructorsynopsis|
ÂÂÂ
destructorsynopsis|methodsynopsis|
Â
I'd even be willing to cut more out of the
model, as this content should be pretty cut and dried
legaleseâ
ð
Â
I'd also be ok with just allowing section
directly for the reuse opportunities and minimal impact to
user expectations.
Â
--Scott
Â
This email contains an attachment
from a external source
This
email contains an attachment which could be a possible
security concern. Attachments can potentially contain
computer viruses or malicious content. Do not open
this attachment if you do not trust the source of this
email.
I'm
following up on my action item to continue the discussion
of the content model of legalnotice to support some kind
of section. I have attached the sample files that Larry
sent out 23 October 2018.
We
were debating whether we should allow section within
legalnotice or whether we should add a new legalsection
element only for legalnotice. I'll try and summarize the
discussion so far.
The
first question I want to ask is whether we are allowing
legalnotice to appear outside of info. That would make
such a legalnotice into literal content that would always
be rendered in the output, as opposed to metadata in info
that may or may not be rendered. I believed we discussed
this possibility, for example putting several legalnotices
in an appendix, but I'm not sure what we decided. That
decision would seem to affect how we structure
legalnotice, especially if it contains sections.
So
do we intend to allow legalnotice as regular content
outside of info?
If
we use section within legalnotice, I don't think we
resolved whether we would alter the content model when it
is used inside legalnotice.ÂÂ That seems to be something
we need to decide as it affects the arguments for and
against.
For
example, if we change the content model of section inside
legalsection, then you could not cut and paste sections in
and out of legalsection without getting validation errors.
Also, users of a content-aware editor would experience
restrictions in their element selection that they might
not understand. If we don't change the model of section
inside legalnotice, then both of these arguments no longer
apply.
So,
do we need to change the content model of section inside
legalnotice, and if so, how?
--
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net