Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Ryan King]

On May 6, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Gordon Oheim wrote:

Hi all,

I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to  
"not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we  
could use a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links  
and the likes? I could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page  
elements tagged as nsfw and changes their display to none or  
something like that when you are at work. Could also use nsfc (for  
children). Google could crawl this and protect my unborn kids. What  
do you think? Useful?


As Charles also mentioned, there's been discussion of this on the  
mailing list before. The short story is this: everyone's work is  
different (I've actually had work were I *had* to look at at stuff  
which would be NSFW for most), so it wouldn't be very useful to try an  
encode a single standard.


If you still want to capture the semantic of "I think this is NSFW"  
you could use xFolk or hReview and tag the link as 'nsfw'.


-ryan
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Scott Reynen]

On May 6, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Gordon Oheim wrote:


Hi all,

I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to  
"not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we  
could use a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links  
and the likes? I could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page  
elements tagged as nsfw and changes their display to none or  
something like that when you are at work. Could also use nsfc (for  
children). Google could crawl this and protect my unborn kids. What  
do you think? Useful?



Hi Gordon,

This would be a new microformat, so I'm moving the discussion to the - 
new list.


http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new/

The idea of rel-nsfw has come up several times previously.  I'd  
encourage everyone who is interested to review the previous discussion  
first, so we can avoid repeating it:


http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=nsfw&l=microformats-discuss%40microformats.org

Peace,
Scott

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Gordon Oheim]

Tom Morris schrieb:

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Gordon Oheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

Hi all,

 I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to
"not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we could use
a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links and the likes? I
could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page elements tagged as nsfw and
changes their display to none or something like that when you are at work.
Could also use nsfc (for children). Google could crawl this and protect my
unborn kids. What do you think? Useful?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work




This has been discussed before, and there was a consensus against
pushing it through the microformats process.

Instead, I've started up an 'unofficial' format that uses the W3C's
GRDDL profile specification to markup links which are not safe for
work. See:
http://tommorris.org/profiles/nsfw

You shouldn't rely on a class name to protect children, though. It's
not designed for that. No amount of semantic markup (or indeed any
software mechanism) substitutes for parental responsibility. What NSFW
is designed for is more so that you can have links marked in such a
way that you might have a common interface element or scripted
behaviour added to the page that warns you not to click on an NSFW
link (on my site, I'm using a bold, red warning that's placed using
generated content, although having recently started doing jQuery, I
may change it to a little confirmation box).

Yours,

  

I see. I have to read up on this.
Thanks for all the replies :)
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Tom Morris]

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Gordon Oheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>  I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to
> "not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we could use
> a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links and the likes? I
> could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page elements tagged as nsfw and
> changes their display to none or something like that when you are at work.
> Could also use nsfc (for children). Google could crawl this and protect my
> unborn kids. What do you think? Useful?
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work
>

This has been discussed before, and there was a consensus against
pushing it through the microformats process.

Instead, I've started up an 'unofficial' format that uses the W3C's
GRDDL profile specification to markup links which are not safe for
work. See:
http://tommorris.org/profiles/nsfw

You shouldn't rely on a class name to protect children, though. It's
not designed for that. No amount of semantic markup (or indeed any
software mechanism) substitutes for parental responsibility. What NSFW
is designed for is more so that you can have links marked in such a
way that you might have a common interface element or scripted
behaviour added to the page that warns you not to click on an NSFW
link (on my site, I'm using a bold, red warning that's placed using
generated content, although having recently started doing jQuery, I
may change it to a little confirmation box).

Yours,

-- 
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello Gordon,

We had a discussion about this quite a while ago.  (Nothing actionable
really come out of it though, if I remember correctly.)

You may want to search the Microformats mailing list for it.  (Since
it is quite relevant.)


One thing though... having rel="nsfw" probably isn't the correct way
to "mark" that, since "rel" has a very specific semantic meaning.
(But that's just a detail.  Maybe "class" would be more appropriate.)

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
http://ChangeLog.ca/


Vlog Razor... Vlogging News...  http://vlograzor.com/


On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Gordon Oheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to 
> "not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we could use 
> a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links and the likes? I 
> could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page elements tagged as nsfw and 
> changes their display to none or something like that when you are at work. 
> Could also use nsfc (for children). Google could crawl this and protect my 
> unborn kids. What do you think? Useful?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work
>
> Cheers, Gordon
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Manu Sporny]

Gordon Oheim wrote:
> I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to
> "not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we could
> use a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links and the
> likes? I could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page elements tagged
> as nsfw and changes their display to none or something like that when
> you are at work. Could also use nsfc (for children). Google could crawl
> this and protect my unborn kids. What do you think? Useful?

I certainly think that this is a very useful concept and merits further
discussion on microformats-dev.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Dynamic Spectrum Auctions and Digital Marketplaces
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2008/04/24/dynamic-spectrum-auctions/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Gordon Oheim]

Hi all,

I was just reading a blog about bad use of Photoshop that linked to 
"not-safe-for-work" sites every now and then. Made me wonder if we could 
use a microformat that indicates "non-suitable for work" links and the 
likes? I could imagine a FF plugin that recognizes page elements tagged 
as nsfw and changes their display to none or something like that when 
you are at work. Could also use nsfc (for children). Google could crawl 
this and protect my unborn kids. What do you think? Useful?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_safe_for_work

Cheers, Gordon
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

[Kevin Marks]

On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On:



By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the
destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or
keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that a tag may just
refer to a major portion of the current page


certainly
aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased"
but it wouldn´t make an assumption about individual hCards? and
depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred´s hCard,
then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is
relating.


There is? Where, on the rel-tag spec, is that made clear?


It's deliberately not defined there. Other microformats that 
incorporate rel-tag for more specific purposes define the scope (eg 
xfolk, hReview, rel-directory)



___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Jonkman
quoted PJ Doland:

>If people have to categorize HOW something might be considered NSFW
>(nudity, language, violence, nudity & language, etc.) it's going to
>make them less likely to use the standard in practice.

That's supposition, presented as fact.

>As I've said earlier, I think PICS and ICRA failed because of their
>complexity.

That, too, is no more than an opinion; it's my opinion that they failed
because only highly-complex, finley-granular categiorisation can succeed
(though I can of course see that that brings with it other problems).

[...]
>Adoption of this as a general standard could be VERY helpful for wider
>adoption of microformats as a whole
[...]

and that's hyperbole, with no apparent justification.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
*  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  
*  Free Our Data:  
*  Are you using Microformats, yet:  ?
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

[Andy Mabbett]

In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian
Suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for
>> each person.
>>
>> On her own page, she has:
>
>> http://example.com/sue.html
>> Title: Sue Smith
>>
>> JaneFred

>>|_.__|
>>  |
>> Sue
>>
>> with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then
>> they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good.
>
>--- i´m not sure how you came to that conclusion?

On:



By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink, a page indicates that the
destination of that hyperlink is an author-designated "tag" (or
keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that a tag may just
refer to a major portion of the current page

> certainly
>aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased"
>but it wouldn´t make an assumption about individual hCards? and
>depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred´s hCard,
>then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is
>relating.

There is? Where, on the rel-tag spec, is that made clear?

>We are dabbling in theoretical territory,

Unlike some, I have no allergy to "theoretical territory". Indeed, it's
a pre-requisite to science.

>do you have a page that has
>been marked-up somewhere and that page is being misinterpreted by
>aggregators and parsers? if so please let us know so we can help
>diagnose the problem.

I am not planning on using rel-tag (especially not in hCard and
hCalendar) until this and some of the other issues with it have been
resolved. I suspect I'm not alone in that.

I also can't lay an egg, but I can tell when one has gone off ;-)


-- 
Andy Mabbett
*  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  
*  Free Our Data:  
*  Are you using Microformats, yet:  ?

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

[Brian Suda]

On 1/1/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for
each person.

On her own page, she has:



http://example.com/sue.html
Title: Sue Smith

JaneFred
   |_.__|
 |
Sue

with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then
they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good.


--- i´m not sure how you came to that conclusion? certainly
aggregators would mark that the page is "about" the term "deceased"
but it wouldn´t make an assumption about individual hCards? and
depending on the mark-up if Sue is NOT nested inside Fred´s hCard,
then there is a distinction between where/what/who the rel-tag is
relating.

We are dabbling in theoretical territory, do you have a page that has
been marked-up somewhere and that page is being misinterpreted by
aggregators and parsers? if so please let us know so we can help
diagnose the problem.

-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Bob Jonkman]

Before this thread dies out completely, I'd like to forward a discussion the 
orginal author 
and I had:


--- Forwarded message follows ---

From:   PJ Doland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Posted to 'A 
Semantic Solution for 
Presenting NSFW Content'
Date:   Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:58:45 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Bob-

Thanks for the information on the list discussion.

I just read through the whole list thread. There's some very good  
feedback in there, but I would like to encourage your group to resist  
the urge to make the spec too full-featured. If people have to  
categorize HOW something might be considered NSFW (nudity, language,  
violence, nudity & language, etc.) it's going to make them less  
likely to use the standard in practice. As I've said earlier, I think  
PICS and ICRA failed because of their complexity.

I, personally, think this feature will mostly be used by community- 
driven sites where the attribute would be automatically added to a  
link by server-side code whenever a user reports a post or comment as  
NSFW with a single click. That is all the more reason to just keep it  
simple.

Adoption of this as a general standard could be VERY helpful for  
wider adoption of microformats as a whole, but the simplicity of it  
is going to be key.

--
PJ Doland
President
PJ Doland Web Design, Inc.
11591 Maple Ridge Rd.
Reston, VA 20190
P: 703.621.0991 F: 208.248.3241
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjdoland.com



On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Bob Jonkman wrote:

> Hi:  Thanx for the reply!
>
> There's been some discussion on your proposal on the Microformats  
> mailing list.  Consensus was
> pretty much the same as yours: PICS is too complicated; if it was  
> any good it would have
> achieved widespread adoption already.  There's a proposal to use  
> your rel="nsfw" as part of
> the hReview microformat.  This is very doable, and takes advantage  
> of existing parsers.
>
> The Microformat mailing list archives with the NSFW thread is at
> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006- 
> December/007885.html
>
> --Bob.
>
>
>
> This is what PJ Doland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
> about "Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Poste" on 30 Dec  
> 2006 at 21:18
>
>> Bob-
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> As I see it, there are several problem with PICS and ICRA:
>>
>> 1. The standards are too complicated for most bloggers to wrap-their
>> heads around. Any Jake can type ten keystrokes and take advantage of
>> my proposed standard.
>> 2. They also don't reference offsite destination anchors.
>> 3. They tend to label a whole page.
>
>
> This is what PJ Doland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
> about "Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Poste" on 30 Dec  
> 2006 at 20:00
>
>> Bob-
>>
>> The problem with PICS and ICRA is that:
>>
>> 1. They tend to focus on rating the content of the entire page. WIth
>> blogs and social network sites where content exists in smaller units
>> of differing theme and authorship, this seems inadequate.
>>
>> 2. The specifications are robust enough that they are complicated on
>> a level where people don't bother with them.
>>
>> Sticking a simple declaration on the element level is much easier and
>> simpler for content authors.
>>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> A new comment has been posted on your blog The Frosty Mug
>>> Revolution, on entry #41577 (A Semantic Solution for Presenting
>>> NSFW Content).
>>>
>>> View this comment: 
>>> Edit this comment: >> __mode=view&id=1605214&_type=comment&blog_id=12>
>>>
>>> IP Address: 206.248.137.186
>>> Name: Bob Jonkman
>>> Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> URL:
>>> Comments:
>>>
>>> I think you may be re-inventing the wheel:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/PICS/";>http://www.w3.org/PICS/
>>>
>>>
>>> --Bob.


--- End of forwarded message ---

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[John Allsopp]

Ben,


I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't it a relationship. NSFW
would formalise the fact that document A:
1) contains a link to document B
2) document A's author considers document B "not safe for work" by
their own standards


at best you could make the argument that rev="nsfw" is appropriate  
within the semantics of HTML (rev is the reverse of rel). That's how  
votelinks work - rev="vote-for", the rev attribute capturing the  
sense that


"this document or a substantial part of it has the relationship with  
the destination of this link as being a vote-for it" (yes that's  
tortured)


So by analogy you might argue

rev="nsfw" "means"

"this document or a substantial part of it has the relationship with  
the destination of this link as being an observation that its content  
is nsfw" (but I feel that is really pushing at least two aspects of  
rev, in particular the document (or substantial part of a document)  
level at which it works).


(One of the misleading aspects of both rel and rev is that while they  
are encoded on links, they apply to inter-document relationships))


But I certainly don't think even at a stretch you could make the  
logic of the rel attribute work sensibly in the case of rel-nsfw -  
the same objections as the rel="vote-for" I think apply, and then some.


Perhaps a (wildy off topic) suggestion to the WhatWG and or the W3s  
new HTML WG which emerges from the discussion of rel and rev is to  
consider providing attributes that enable link level assertions -  
that is a mechanism for typing links themselves, perhaps in a manner  
similar to rel and rev, so that this is extensible via profiles or  
convention. FWIW over a decade ago I implemented a hypertext based  
system that had user extensible typed links, and that feature was  
widely used by the (relatively small) user base. But that's really  
out of the scope of ufs eh?


happy new year to all

j

John Allsopp

style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master
blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher
Web Directions North, Vancouver Feb 6-10 :: http:// 
north.webdirections.org


___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Scope of tags (Was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> >The xfolk version could look like this:
>> >
>> >
>> >  http://goatse.cx";>check this out!
>> >  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW";>NSFW)>
>> That would also tag the *linking* page as "NSFW".
>>
>> (In fact, that seems to be an issue with xfolk in general...)
>>
>
>Actually I'd say this is an issue with rel-tag in general, you'd have
>similar problems with hreview and with any uF that employs rel-tag.

Indeed. It was suggested that "deceased" be used as a tag in hCards, in
lieu of a date-of-death field.

Suppose Sue publishes a family tree as a series of web pages, one for
each person.

On her own page, she has:


http://example.com/sue.html
Title: Sue Smith


JaneFred
   |_.__|
 |
Sue

with an hCard for each person. If they tag Fred as "deceased", then
they, too, are shown as deceased. Not good.

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Merry Bloomin' Christmas!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Ciaran McNulty]

On 1/1/07, Eran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

That last sentence pretty much leaves all interpretation of scope to the
application. In a blog the scope is usually a single post (even if several
posts appear on the same page), in hReview it is the product (or the rating
for the product) and in xFolk it's the page pointed to by the taggedentry
link


Is that a problem though?

If a page contains an hAtom blog entry about Tom, an hReview of Dick
and an hListing about Harry then it's actually a perfectly valid
interpretation of the tags to say that that page is tagged with Tom,
Dick, Harry even though parsing the individual uFs would yield more
specific interpretations.

-Ciaran
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Eran]

Andy said:
> >The xfolk version could look like this:
> >
> >
> >  http://goatse.cx";>check this out!
> >  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW";>NSFW) 
> That would also tag the *linking* page as "NSFW".
> 
> (In fact, that seems to be an issue with xfolk in general...)
> 

Actually I'd say this is an issue with rel-tag in general, you'd have
similar problems with hreview and with any uF that employs rel-tag. The
scope of a tag was left (purposefully) undefined, quoting the abstract
section of rel-tag[1]:

Rel-Tag is one of several MicroFormats. By adding rel="tag" to a hyperlink,
a page indicates that the destination of that hyperlink is an
author-designated "tag" (or keyword/subject) for the current page. Note that
a tag may just refer to a major portion of the current page (i.e. a blog
post).

That last sentence pretty much leaves all interpretation of scope to the
application. In a blog the scope is usually a single post (even if several
posts appear on the same page), in hReview it is the product (or the rating
for the product) and in xFolk it's the page pointed to by the taggedentry
link.

Eran.

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/reltag#Abstract

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Ciaran McNulty]

On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Jan 1, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Ciaran McNulty wrote:
> Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be
> @rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the
> linked page rather than describing the link relationship.

Not really -- it's saying that this link isn't a link that should be
followed by an automated search engine. The relationship between
document A and document B is "don't follow if you're a search engine".

You can't really find an appropriate way to finish the sentence "The
relationship between document A and document B is " with rel-
nsfw. It's a pretty good litmus test for the correct usage of @rel.


But isn't it the case that rel-nsfw is exactly the same class of
relationship as rel-nofollow?

If your example is OK then surely "don't follow if you're at work" is
just as valid?

-Ciaran McNulty
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eran
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> The current proposal is for a method of "rating" (in a very loose sense)
>> the page which is being linked to, and for which tagging is not
>> appropriate.
>>
>
>I haven't followed the entire thread but this seems like a good use
>case for xfolk or even hReview.
>
>The xfolk version could look like this:
>
>
>  http://goatse.cx";>check this out!
>  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW";>NSFW)http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Eran]

Andy said:
> Having re-read the original "content rating" discussion, it's clear that
> the initial proposal was for a uF for ratings of a current page, for
> which tagging was, not unreasonably, suggested.
> 
> The current proposal is for a method of "rating" (in a very loose sense)
> the page which is being linked to, and for which tagging is not
> appropriate.
> 

I haven't followed the entire thread but this seems like a good use case for
xfolk or even hReview.

The xfolk version could look like this:


  http://goatse.cx";>check this out!
  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW";>NSFW)


The hReview version would probably be similar, maybe just a wrapper around
the xfolkentry to show that this is just one person's opinion and should be
taken as such.

Eran.

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ciaran
McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be
>@rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the
>linked page rather than describing the link relationship.

Having re-read the original "content rating" discussion, it's clear that
the initial proposal was for a uF for ratings of a current page, for
which tagging was, not unreasonably, suggested.

The current proposal is for a method of "rating" (in a very loose sense)
the page which is being linked to, and for which tagging is not
appropriate.

They are clearly *NOT* the same, so I've removed reference to the latter
from the "rejected formats" page:



For the current use-case, what seems to be need (or, perhaps, "wanted")
is a way of labelling an "a" element, for which:

rel=[rating]
or
class=[rating]

might be more appropriate. So we might, hypothetically, use the ICRA
vocabulary:



thus:


   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Boxing080905.jpg



   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anadyomene.jpg




For the sake of transparency, I should state that I am against a uF for
rating linked pages as "NSFW" (on in any other, similarly arbitrary and
culturally insensitive manner); I am ambivalent about a uF for rating
linked pages according to a /relatively/ neutral, descriptive schema
such as ICRA:



though I note that the ICRA vocabulary is itself limited (the film
"Bambi" would be rated as violent, for instance; there're no categories
for topless men, people in underwear, etc.; and there is no method for
encoding "degree" - a sentence such as "Lord Willoughby de Broke shot a
bird on his estate at Compton Verney" is rated in the same way as a
graphic visual depiction of a bullfight or an abattoir. Much of the
wording (e.g. "harmful acts") is still highly subjective.)

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Happy New Year!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Colin Barrett]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Ciaran McNulty wrote:


On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

> I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a
> link
> to a second page.

It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot
about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where
it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel.


I don't believe rel-tag is an incorrect use of 'rel'.  @rel="tag"
means that the page being linked to is a tag for the current page.
The linked page should ideally contain a definition of what the tag
means.


I didn't mean to imply that rel-tag was an improper use of rel. I  
meant rel-nsfw.



Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be
@rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the
linked page rather than describing the link relationship.


Not really -- it's saying that this link isn't a link that should be  
followed by an automated search engine. The relationship between  
document A and document B is "don't follow if you're a search engine".


You can't really find an appropriate way to finish the sentence "The  
relationship between document A and document B is " with rel- 
nsfw. It's a pretty good litmus test for the correct usage of @rel.

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Ciaran McNulty]

On 1/1/07, Colin Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

> I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a
> link
> to a second page.

It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot
about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where
it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel.


I don't believe rel-tag is an incorrect use of 'rel'.  @rel="tag"
means that the page being linked to is a tag for the current page.
The linked page should ideally contain a definition of what the tag
means.

Another @rel value that is more similar to the @rel="nsfw" would be
@rel="no-follow", which is trying to express an opinion about the
linked page rather than describing the link relationship.

My own opinion is that a rating is more like an hReview, but the
semantics don't correspond too well.

-Ciaran McNulty
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Colin Barrett]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a  
link

to a second page.


It could be expanded to include links? -- I don't know a whole lot  
about it, it was suggested in the discussion I had with someone where  
it was pointed out that this is an incorrect use of rel.

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin
Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>Tagging is probably a better uF for this, IMO. I like the idea, but
>someone pointed out (before the post on this list) that it's the wrong
>semantics for @rel. For the semantic web to go further, we really do
>need to respect the semantics established in standards documents.

I thought tagging was for tagging the current page, not labelling a link
to a second page.

How would you tag:


Here's a
http://example.com/kitten.jpg";>fluffy kitten
and here's a
http://example.com/porn.jpg";>pornographic nude


?

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Merry Bloomin' Christmas!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Colin Barrett]

On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote:


I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't it a relationship. NSFW
would formalise the fact that document A:
1) contains a link to document B
2) document A's author considers document B "not safe for work" by
their own standards


This isn't a relationship. This is document author A's opinion of  
document B.


Tagging is probably a better uF for this, IMO. I like the idea, but  
someone pointed out (before the post on this list) that it's the wrong  
semantics for @rel. For the semantic web to go further, we really do  
need to respect the semantics established in standards documents.


-Colin
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Ben Buchanan]

"describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor
specified by the href attribute"[2]
"nsfw" describes the authors opinion of the nature of the content to
be found at the end of the link, and by no means the nature of the
relationships between the destination and source documents.


I'm not immediately convinced that it isn't it a relationship. NSFW
would formalise the fact that document A:
1) contains a link to document B
2) document A's author considers document B "not safe for work" by
their own standards


2. this is not visible metadata (nor is nofollow, for that matter)


Nor are tags, for that matter. Tags encourage visible meta-data, but
the actual functional meta-data is invisible[1]. It's a uf
"requirement" which is inconsistently maintained.


It certainly, as has been more than once mentioned, doesn't pave the
cowpaths (where explicit visible content in the page (though not
always in the link content) is how nsfw is almost invariably indicated.)


Perhaps a more workable uf would be:

Blah blah language/culture-appropriate warning text

This would allow for a consistent marker (the class); the warning
remains visible; it can only apply to one  (unambiguous).

At any rate, this does appear to be a moot point[2]. Out of curiosity,
is there a formal set of criteria that are applied to deeming a uf
"rejected"?

cheers,

Ben

[1] I expand on my thoughts at
http://weblog.200ok.com.au/2006/01/limitations-of-rel-microformat.html
[2] http://microformats.org/wiki/rejected-formats#Content_Rating

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Mike Schinkel]

Scott Reynen wrote:
> > Scott Reynen wrote:
> >> "More valuable" is all relative to likelihood to be published.  I 
> >> believe rel="nsfw" was suggested on this list a while 
> back, and this 
> >> same vagueness issue was raised at the time.  But I think in 
> >> practice, almost no one is publishing ratings with links, and many 
> >> people are publishing "NSFW"
> >> warnings.[1]
> >
> > Can you please provide some examples of real world publishing 
> > behavior?
> 
> I would be happy to, except ... On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:21 AM, 
> Frances Berriman wrote:
> 
> > The content-rating got listed under rejected-formats instead [1].
> >
> > [1]http://microformats.org/wiki/rejected-formats#Content_Rating
> 
> I don't have any real world examples that couldn't work with 
> the rel- tag suggestion in that rejection.

FWIW, that rel-tag suggestion was unclear to me.  But my question was just
to make sure you provided real world examples as it appeared you were
advocating for a "nsfw" tag with providing examples.

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org/


___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Scott Reynen]

On Dec 30, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:


Scott Reynen wrote:

"More valuable" is all relative to likelihood to be
published.  I believe rel="nsfw" was suggested on this list a
while back, and this same vagueness issue was raised at the
time.  But I think in practice, almost no one is publishing
ratings with links, and many people are publishing "NSFW"
warnings.[1]


Can you please provide some examples of real world publishing  
behavior?


I would be happy to, except ... On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Frances  
Berriman wrote:



The content-rating got listed under rejected-formats instead [1].

[1]http://microformats.org/wiki/rejected-formats#Content_Rating


I don't have any real world examples that couldn't work with the rel- 
tag suggestion in that rejection.


Peace,
Scott
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[John Allsopp]

Hi all,

Coming late to the discussion of rel-nsfw[1], a couple of points I  
don't think I've seen raised, one that pertains to HTML, and one to  
ufs specifically.


1. despite rel-nofollow's "success", rel is not the appropriate  
attribute.


As I am sure most people here have read numerous times, rel

"describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor  
specified by the href attribute"[2]


"nsfw" describes the authors opinion of the nature of the content to  
be found at the end of the link, and by no means the nature of the  
relationships between the destination and source documents.


So, it's far from ideal on that count.

2. this is not visible metadata (nor is nofollow, for that matter)

In this case, there is no way, without the use of either explicit  
content (or CSS not supported in IE6 and older, and I really don't  
know about screen readers) of signifying through the use of the rel  
attribute that the content is in the opinion of the linker nsfw. Turn  
off CSS and any indication to human readers will vanish in this case  
at any rate.


It certainly, as has been more than once mentioned, doesn't pave the  
cowpaths (where explicit visible content in the page (though not  
always in the link content) is how nsfw is almost invariably indicated.)


The second concern applies to the extended idea of using a class  
value of nsfw on arbitrary HTML elements, but that at least gets  
around the problem of the first. But, it's really shaky with the  
cowpaths test, because I have only ever seen links advertise their  
destinations are nsfw, not page subsections themselves advertising  
this (which doesn't mean that it never happens, but that anecdotally,  
it is rare. It also happens to be a different problem - marking up  
specifically your own content (rel=tag like) as being nsfw, as  
opposed to marking up other content as being nsfw (more analogous to  
xfolk))


[1] http://pj.doland.org/archives/041571.php
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#adef-rel
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Mike Schinkel]

Dougal Campbell
> I disagree. I think that the people who are likely to 
> produce/consume a 'nsfw' tag have a moderately similar 
> (though vague) notion of what is or isn't safe for most 
> people's work places. 

In certain countries, a picture of a topless woman would be "sfw" whereas in
others a picture of woman's uncovered face would be considered "nsfw."  It
is rather myopic and (unconsciously) arrogant to presume other's culture are
moderately similar to one's own.

> any more than the concepts of 'friend', 
> 'acquaintence', or 'spouse' in XFN have to be defined. 

Those concepts are far more cross-cultural than that for offensive material.

> Alice 
> might flag something as 'nsfw', whereas Bob might consider 
> the same content 'sfw'. That doesn't invalidate Alice's 
> personal opinion and her desire to warn others that the 
> destination link might be questionable in some way. In fact, 
> the designation might not even reflect whether or not the 
> content is 'safe' in Alice's workplace, but merely that she 
> recognizes that it might not be appropriate for *some* 
> workplaces.

You need to consider what Microformats are for. They are there to provide
for automated processing. So yes while it is fine for Alice and Bob to write
that things are "nsfw" or "sfw", or send emails to friend with a link where
they mention that it is "nsfw", but I would argue that is not the same as
using markup meant for machine processing. The former allows the human
reader to evaluate the context, the latter has no intelligence with which to
evaluate context. Consequently I would argue that microformats usage should
be as objectively universal as possible.

More simply said, it is fine for people to type "NSFW" next to a link they
put on a web page, but to encode it for machine processing would be a
mistake.

> Some metadata represents subjective opinions, not objective 
> facts (e.g., hReview). Opinions vary. Ergo.

Reviews are opinions by nature but that which defines something as a review
is rather objective.  Further, one need look at the use case with which the
microformat would be applied.  hReview allows aggregators to find reviews,
"nsfw" would allow system to censor content. Those are two very different
use-cases so even if there were some subjectively in what was considered a
review and what wasn't, someone would get a longer list of reviews where
many are not so good as opposed to content being sensored by "nsfw."

Now if the proposal is instead to include identifiers that are objective,
I'd be far more supportive of that:



 


 
 
 


Of course this could lead to a long list if we tried to cover all bases, but
"nudity" and "violence" might be a start.  Are there other classes you are
concerned about?

BTW, there is are a few others to specifically consider ;-)

  [1]
 [2]
 [3] 
 [4]

IMO, censorship is a very serious issue[5] and we should always err on the
side of censoring less, not more.  Of course if you are of the mind that
censorship is a good thing, then my arguments may not be compelling for you.

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org/

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/07/10/italy-porn.htm
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_Oath_Controversy_of_the_110th_United_Stat
es_Congress
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse
[5] http://progressives.typepad.com/broadview/images/justiceDouglas_0.gif

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Mike Schinkel]

Scott Reynen wrote:
> "More valuable" is all relative to likelihood to be 
> published.  I believe rel="nsfw" was suggested on this list a 
> while back, and this same vagueness issue was raised at the 
> time.  But I think in practice, almost no one is publishing 
> ratings with links, and many people are publishing "NSFW" 
> warnings.[1]

Can you please provide some examples of real world publishing behavior?[1]

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org/

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/why-examples

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Frances Berriman]

On 30/12/06, Colin Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


This is just silly. The microformat spec wouldn't specify what things
are suitable for work. I could see Chinese-language or Arabic-language
developing their own informal sense of what rel=nsfw means. It's a
tool for content authors to use, nothing more. There's no codifying of
anything.

-Colin


I think that's the key to this. "NSFW" just happens to be a really
good marker.  So what if some people don't know what it actually
stands for?

Does everyone who uses RSS or those who look out for the orange
chicklet know what "RSS" stands for, or what the little lines in the
icon are representing?  No. Probably not.  I know my mother doesn't.
She just sees it and knows it means she can click it and it'll give
her a way to get updates about that page.  It's not important what the
"marker" is so long as everyone gets what it does.

"NSFW" appears to be turning out to be the marker for this particular need.

--
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Colin Barrett]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:


In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Casciano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

many  people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may  
be,

it's  apparently communicating something useful on the live web
today.


That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western
democracy",
then...

What's "safe for work" in China, or Iran?

Is a nude picture of a 17-year old safe for work in Holland? Or the
UK?



I don't think that matters AT ALL to the discussion at hand


On the contrary - it matters a great deal, unless you want uFs to only
codify a sub-set of judeo-christian western behaviours.


This is just silly. The microformat spec wouldn't specify what things  
are suitable for work. I could see Chinese-language or Arabic-language  
developing their own informal sense of what rel=nsfw means. It's a  
tool for content authors to use, nothing more. There's no codifying of  
anything.


-Colin
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Colin Barrett]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote:


practice, almost no one is publishing ratings with links, and many
people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be, it's
apparently communicating something useful on the live web today.


I don't think it is actually as vague as people are suggesting, since
I would look at it another way entirely.

NSFW means nothing more or less than "the author of the post would
consider the target content unsafe for work". It doesn't need to be a
universal definition, which is unworkable anyway. It's something
relative to the author, probably (but not necessarily) with some level
of consideration of their imagined audience.

To put it another way, it's an opinion; much the same as a review,
vote or tag. We don't require all tag links to be tagged according to
a universal definition of the tag in question; nor do we require all
the world to agree with a review or a vote.

So I'd happily support rel="nsfw". It would be as useful as the author
adding the text "NSFW"; with the added benefit that the UA could be
set to perform actions like prominently alert the user or even prevent
them clicking that link.


I definitely agree with this, and other people who are echoing the  
"relative to the author" idea. The point of marking something NSFW on,  
say, IRC (something I often do) is to let people know that I could see  
how the content would be unsuitable for a workplace. It's something  
that's up to the author to make a call on.


Occasionally I will mark something as "SFW, but explicit language" or  
"NSFW, nudity," similar to the way the MPAA ratings are now, in that  
they say what aspects of a movie warranted the R or PG-13 etc rating.  
I think something like that might be useful to think about.


-Colin
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Ben Buchanan]

practice, almost no one is publishing ratings with links, and many
people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be, it's
apparently communicating something useful on the live web today.


I don't think it is actually as vague as people are suggesting, since
I would look at it another way entirely.

NSFW means nothing more or less than "the author of the post would
consider the target content unsafe for work". It doesn't need to be a
universal definition, which is unworkable anyway. It's something
relative to the author, probably (but not necessarily) with some level
of consideration of their imagined audience.

To put it another way, it's an opinion; much the same as a review,
vote or tag. We don't require all tag links to be tagged according to
a universal definition of the tag in question; nor do we require all
the world to agree with a review or a vote.

So I'd happily support rel="nsfw". It would be as useful as the author
adding the text "NSFW"; with the added benefit that the UA could be
set to perform actions like prominently alert the user or even prevent
them clicking that link.

cheers,

Ben

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Bob Jonkman]

This is what Dougal Campbell  said
about "Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"" on 29 Dec 2006 at 14:26

> Microformats are a convient way to codify metadata. Some metadata
> represents subjective opinions, not objective facts (e.g., hReview).
> Opinions vary. Ergo.

And so we have found the cowpath:  This is simply a rating system, so hReview 
should apply, 
possible with the rel-tag pointing to "nsfw" and a rating value from 0 (SFW) 
through 3 (SFW 
in liberal workplaces, NSFW in conservative workplaces) to 5 (NSFW, at least 
not in my 
workplace).

--Bob.


-- -- -- --
Bob Jonkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sobac.com/sobac/
SOBAC Microcomputer Services  Voice: +1-519-669-0388   
6 James Street, Elmira ON  Canada  N3B 1L5  Cel: +1-519-635-9413
Networking   --   Office & Business Automation   --   Consulting
PGP:0xAE33E989 Fingrprnt:9FAF A6AC B567 BC10 8973 7CF0 CB27 0317



___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Dougal Campbell]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Casciano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>   
 many  people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be,
 it's  apparently communicating something useful on the live web
 today.
 
>>> That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western
>>> democracy",
>>> then...
>>>
>>> What's "safe for work" in China, or Iran?
>>>
>>> Is a nude picture of a 17-year old safe for work in Holland? Or the
>>> UK?
>>>
>>>   
>> I don't think that matters AT ALL to the discussion at hand
>> 
>
> On the contrary - it matters a great deal, unless you want uFs to only
> codify a sub-set of judeo-christian western behaviours.
>   

I disagree. I think that the people who are likely to produce/consume a
'nsfw' tag have a moderately similar (though vague) notion of what is or
isn't safe for most people's work places. Such a designation doesn't
necessarily have to be specific or agreed upon in a wide, cross-cultural
fashion, any more than the concepts of 'friend', 'acquaintence', or
'spouse' in XFN have to be defined. Alice might flag something as
'nsfw', whereas Bob might consider the same content 'sfw'. That doesn't
invalidate Alice's personal opinion and her desire to warn others that
the destination link might be questionable in some way. In fact, the
designation might not even reflect whether or not the content is 'safe'
in Alice's workplace, but merely that she recognizes that it might not
be appropriate for *some* workplaces.

If it was called rel='nsfw:imho', would that make it more palatable,
just because it explicitly states that this is an opinion? You'll never
get any sizable group of people to agree on exactly what 'nsfw' means.
But you don't have to. Just make the definition state that it reflects
an opinion that may or may not apply to particular individuals.

There's no reason to paint this as a "judeo-christian western" idea,
either. There are definitely going to be differences in opinion on
exactly what constitutes 'safe' content between different cultures
(Christian, Muslim, Hindu, athiest, whatever), and even *within* those
cultures. So what? There are different opinions about what exactly a
'spouse' is, too. Polygamy? Same-sex marriage? Common-law marriage?
Nobody had to specify limits on that when XFN was designed. And they
shouldn't have to. Microformats are a convient way to codify metadata.
Some metadata represents subjective opinions, not objective facts (e.g.,
hReview). Opinions vary. Ergo.

-- 
Dougal Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dougal.gunters.org/

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Casciano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>>> many  people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be,
>>> it's  apparently communicating something useful on the live web
>>>today.
>>
>> That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western
>>democracy",
>> then...
>>
>> What's "safe for work" in China, or Iran?
>>
>> Is a nude picture of a 17-year old safe for work in Holland? Or the
>>UK?
>>
>
>I don't think that matters AT ALL to the discussion at hand

On the contrary - it matters a great deal, unless you want uFs to only
codify a sub-set of judeo-christian western behaviours.

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Merry Bloomin' Christmas!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Content rating examples deleted (was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

[Frances Berriman]

On 29/12/06, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>Here's the previous research on this:
>
>http://microformats.org/wiki/content-rating-examples
>
>Apparently deleted after inactivity.

Three & a half hours of inactivity...


If you read my follow up response on that thread, the deletion is
explained a little more. I don't think this new thread is especially
warranted.

It was literally a format that came and went in about 24 hours, iirc!

--
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Chris Casciano]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,  
Scott

Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes


many  people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be,
it's  apparently communicating something useful on the live web  
today.


That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western  
democracy",

then...

What's "safe for work" in China, or Iran?

Is a nude picture of a 17-year old safe for work in Holland? Or the  
UK?




I don't think that matters AT ALL to the discussion at hand, which  
was one of my points in my previous post. Its a judgement call by the  
authors or contributors of a site... just like the use of most other  
'tags' is fairly arbitrary and appropriateness can be argued to death.



The way I see it if we are examining the usage of the label, as is  
and separate from any ratings system. I see it used quite often on  
the web today - mostly in forums or community sites like fark, mefi,  
message boards etc. There is little sense in arguing over its  
appropriate application to the content because people are already  
making those judgement calls themselves. Instead those interested  
should probably look at the implementation details instead (see  
Phae's previous links for a starting point... compare with  
rel="NSFW"... look at live usage examples... try and come to a  
consensus that can be FAQd and promoted)


--
[ Chris Casciano ]
[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ http://placenamehere.com ]

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Frances Berriman]

On 29/12/06, Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

> What happened to the uF "requirement" for research into existing
> practices?

It's still there.  Here's the previous research on this:

http://microformats.org/wiki/content-rating-examples

Apparently deleted after inactivity.


I believe Drew deleted the content-rating pages that we started
(assuming it was so there wouldn't be any confusion about a
half-started uFs that would never go anywhere!).  Just about
everything gleamed from the brief exploration of interest is in the
mailing list archives though.

The content-rating got listed under rejected-formats instead [1].

[1]http://microformats.org/wiki/rejected-formats#Content_Rating

--
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Content rating examples deleted (was: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw")

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>Here's the previous research on this:
>
>http://microformats.org/wiki/content-rating-examples
>
>Apparently deleted after inactivity.

Three & a half hours of inactivity...

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Merry Bloomin' Christmas!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Scott Reynen]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:


What happened to the uF "requirement" for research into existing
practices?


It's still there.  Here's the previous research on this:

http://microformats.org/wiki/content-rating-examples

Apparently deleted after inactivity.

Peace,
Scott

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frances
Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>This is exactly the issue we came up with when we started discussing a
>content-rating format a few months back, and previous again to that
>[1].

Thank you.

>It's very difficult to come up with a universal standard for
>describing content and it's "safety".

Yet there are many existing standards for doing so; which are far more
considered and granular than the binary "NSFW".

What happened to the uF "requirement" for research into existing
practices?

>[1]
>http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-
>discuss/2006-July/004942.html

That article suggests linking to 
using rel-tag. It doesn't say what happens if/ when that article is
deleted.

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Merry Bloomin' Christmas!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Angus McIntyre]

At 07:43 -0500 29.12.2006, B.K. DeLong wrote:

Intriguing, yesbut it would be even more valuable if tied to a
rating system of some sort. ie a user picks from a series of de facto
rating standards which give a ranked value to whatever is labeled as
NSFW ...


I guess that PICS  is pretty much dead, huh?

I briefly tried to add ratings to one of my websites (on the grounds 
that I had a mix of content, some of which was kid-friendly and some 
of which was not). PICS didn't help itself by being agnostic on 
exactly how content was to be rated, so that you had to choose from a 
list of 'self-rating vocabularies', none of which received any 
official blessing. If I recall correctly, I tried to use RSACi, found 
it inflexible and poorly thought-out, and - like everyone else - gave 
up on the whole idea.


Firefox and Safari don't seem to have any provision for this kind of 
thing; I don't know if Explorer still does, but I have the impression 
that enthusiasm has all but died. It's been a long time since I've 
heard anyone actually talk about the issue.


RSACi now seems to have been absorbed into ICRA 
: even their website design says "Web1.0".


I think there is scope for self-rated content and it would be nice to 
have a content-rating system that didn't scream 'time stopped in 
1999' quite so loudly. The bottom-up approach of microformats might 
actually offer a better chance of success than the ponderous 
bureaucratic style of RSACi, but anyone who wants to go this way 
should probably be aware that this is a topic that has been something 
of a tarpit in the past.



 ... perhaps then using CSS or Javascript to appropriately color
links. something to think about as NSFW can be quite vague.


I think that there are practical objections to coloring links 
(accessibility, the fact that 'nsfw' colors might already be used for 
other purposes by a particular design, etc).


A possible alternative could be a distinctive marker. Assuming that 
the widely-used convention of writing '[NSFW]' isn't adequate, you 
could always start a project along the lines of 
 or  to 
popularize a particular icon.


There's room for debate about what the icon should look like, but I 
personally favor a stylized 'goatse' image. Set in white on top of 
one of those Web2.0-ish 'glassy-look chiclet' backgrounds - like the 
feed and share icons - it could look quite stylish. ;-)


Angus
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>many  people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be,
>it's  apparently communicating something useful on the live web today.

That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western democracy",
then...

What's "safe for work" in China, or Iran?

Is a nude picture of a 17-year old safe for work in Holland? Or the UK?

-- 
Andy Mabbett

Merry Bloomin' Christmas!
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Chris Casciano]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, B.K. DeLong wrote:


Intriguing, yesbut it would be even more valuable if tied to a
rating system of some sort. ie a user picks from a series of de facto
rating standards which give a ranked value to whatever is labeled as
NSFW perhaps then using CSS or Javascript to appropriately color
links. something to think about as NSFW can be quite vague.


I had similar thoughts

I usually work from my own office so there basically isn't anything  
that isn't safe (unless I'm with a client, but then I'm usually not  
surfing)... so if I did install some sort of warning device based off  
of a simple NSFW flag the indicator would be more often then not a  
false positive... or being caught by some site that doesn't use the  
attribute [the goatse test].



But I guess ultimately I don't see much harm in it either. Lots of  
forums or other link based sites [e.g. FARK] routinely label items as  
NSFW - even though no one can ever agree the usage is correct - so  
who am I to say that there isn't an opportunity to codify +  
standardize that label. On purely technical merits I see it having a  
lot more going for it then some of the other formats that have been  
proposed.


--
[ Chris Casciano ]
[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ http://placenamehere.com ]

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Frances Berriman]

On 29/12/06, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The concept of being able to mark something as unsafe, mature, NSFW,
etc. *does* keep cropping back up though - so this may point to either
the need to explain and introduce/encourage people to use the
resolution suggested previously (i.e. using rel), or thinking again
about something a little more solid.


Just to quickly point out to save anyone looking (rel solution):
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-July/004951.html
--
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Frances Berriman]

On 29/12/06, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>many  people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be,
>it's  apparently communicating something useful on the live web today.

That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western democracy",
then...

What's "safe for work" in China, or Iran?

Is a nude picture of a 17-year old safe for work in Holland? Or the UK?



This is exactly the issue we came up with when we started discussing a
content-rating format a few months back, and previous again to that
[1].

It's very difficult to come up with a universal standard for
describing content and it's "safety".  However, "NSFW" is a term
starting to be used as commonly as other "web speak" terms such as
"LOL" or "RTFM" (poor examples, but the point is - not everyone who
uses that necessarily knows what it means or where it originates).

The concept of being able to mark something as unsafe, mature, NSFW,
etc. *does* keep cropping back up though - so this may point to either
the need to explain and introduce/encourage people to use the
resolution suggested previously (i.e. using rel), or thinking again
about something a little more solid.

[1]http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006-July/004942.html

--
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Scott Reynen]

On Dec 29, 2006, at 6:43 AM, B.K. DeLong wrote:


Intriguing, yesbut it would be even more valuable if tied to a
rating system of some sort. ie a user picks from a series of de facto
rating standards which give a ranked value to whatever is labeled as
NSFW perhaps then using CSS or Javascript to appropriately color
links. something to think about as NSFW can be quite vague.


"More valuable" is all relative to likelihood to be published.  I  
believe rel="nsfw" was suggested on this list a while back, and this  
same vagueness issue was raised at the time.  But I think in  
practice, almost no one is publishing ratings with links, and many  
people are publishing "NSFW" warnings.  So vague as it may be, it's  
apparently communicating something useful on the live web today.


Peace,
Scott
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[B.K. DeLong]

Intriguing, yesbut it would be even more valuable if tied to a
rating system of some sort. ie a user picks from a series of de facto
rating standards which give a ranked value to whatever is labeled as
NSFW perhaps then using CSS or Javascript to appropriately color
links. something to think about as NSFW can be quite vague.

On 12/29/06, Robert Crowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

It seems to me this guy is embarking on a microformats type project,
or at least he would benefit from some of the combined experience this
mailing list could provide:

http://pj.doland.org/archives/041571.php (original idea)
http://pj.doland.org/archives/041577.php (follow up post)

Rob
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss




--
B.K. DeLong (K3GRN)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.617.797.8471

http://www.wkdelong.orgSon.
http://www.ianetsec.comWork.
http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer.
http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org   Service.
http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play.


PGP Fingerprint:
38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5  A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE

FOAF:
http://foaf.brain-stream.org
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[Robert Crowther]

It seems to me this guy is embarking on a microformats type project,
or at least he would benefit from some of the combined experience this
mailing list could provide:

http://pj.doland.org/archives/041571.php (original idea)
http://pj.doland.org/archives/041577.php (follow up post)

Rob
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss