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

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 peopl

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

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

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

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

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

d 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 als

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

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

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

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, sinc

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

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"

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

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

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)> >> Tha

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

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

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

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

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

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 th

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

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 p

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

d 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,

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

uot;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 &

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

es "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.

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

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 conten

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

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 ar

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

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 b

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

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

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

quot; (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";&

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

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 practi

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

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

Re: Just tag it. (was Re: [uf-discuss] "parental guidance"Microformat?)

ded as "work safe" or not content greatly varies from say Saudi Arabia, to the US, to Sweden. Even in the US, it has both changed over time, and is quite different in different locations, e.g. a beach lifeguard tower, a car repair shop, or an accounting firm. In addition, common practi

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

s 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&quo

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

"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 de

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

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 res

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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 <http://www

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

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 lar

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

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

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

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 previousl

[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

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_

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

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. >> &g

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

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.

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

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

Re: [uf-discuss] Should microformat features (like rel-tag) have explicit scope?

On 2/1/07, Derrick Lyndon Pallas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about an xFolk link with a tag of <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW>? Should that imply that the containing page is not safe for work? Well if an item on a page is tagged NSFW doesn't that mean the page is NSFW? I

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

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 s

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

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

Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Exploratory discussion: content rating

On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Drew McLellan wrote: On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:53, Scott Reynen wrote: It would also be useful to follow the process, which requires someone to go around to sites full of NSFW content and document the markup. I believe the only volunteers to do this last time

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

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 r

Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Exploratory discussion: content rating

he current discussion (e.g. ambiguity of ratings, existing schema) were made last October already, so I think reviewing the previous discussion would be useful in moving this discussion forward. It would also be useful to follow the process, which requires someone to go around to sites full of NS

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

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 ratin

[uf-discuss] Re: Use with Greasemonkey?

ser scripts. Seems like it'd be very useful for some things like my idea for a voluntary NSFW blocker. If any link has rel="nsfw", I'd like the page to throw up a dialog box asking the user if they intended to follow the link or not. Seems safer for work environments than a s

Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Exploratory discussion: content rating

On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:53, Scott Reynen wrote: It would also be useful to follow the process, which requires someone to go around to sites full of NSFW content and document the markup. I believe the only volunteers to do this last time around were being facetious. One problem with

Re: [uf-discuss] Exploratory discussion: content rating

ite (or rather, that problem is easily solved). The problem is determining what ratings mean. NSFW in one location can be very different than NSFW in the building next door. An R rating may imply that anyone under 17 shouldn't be watching this (according to the MPAA), but it can also mean t

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

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 Blo

Re: [uf-discuss] Exploratory discussion: content rating

so. E.g. you can tag something as "NSFW" by linking the rel-tag to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW Longer: On 7/27/06 6:46 AM, "Scott Reynen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This was discussed at some length last October: > > http://microformats.org/discus

[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

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 _

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

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 _

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

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 point

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

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.

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

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 respe

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

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 A

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

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

Re: [uf-discuss] Exploratory discussion: content rating

'xxx' rating to a link. Here we're talking about rating an item of content itself, like a photo, paragraph or perhaps an entire page. Interesting to see the NSFW model cropping up again. drew. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list

Re: [uf-discuss] Exploratory discussion: content rating

e (or rather, that problem is easily solved). The problem is determining what ratings mean. NSFW in one location can be very different than NSFW in the building next door. An R rating may imply that anyone under 17 shouldn't be watching this (according to the MPAA), but it can also mean t

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

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 pag

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

tag is rejected). That would stop obvious abuse like http://technorati.com/tag/nasty+nsfw+stuff"; rel="tag">nice worksafe stuff being indexed. That way your expectations based on visible text would be addressed as well. cheers, Ben -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/>

Re: [uf-discuss] Should microformat features (like rel-tag) have explicit scope?

about an xFolk link with a tag of <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW>? Should that imply that the containing page is not safe for work? Do the xFolk entries on unalog imply that unalog is about any of those tags? Here's my problem: rel-tag is reusable. It applies to whatever contains i

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

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

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

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 >> >> Jane

Re: [uf-discuss] GRDDL with HTML 4.01

a. You ought to use a profile page - perhaps a specific profile for your whole site with links to different transformations. I've put together some profiles: http://tommorris.org/profiles/tommorris http://tommorris.org/profiles/nsfw http://tommorris.org/profiles/votelinks Using data-view on the

Re: [uf-discuss] Re: Microformats Would Benefit From a Pseudo-Namespace

at scales so that everyone can define "class-names with deeper meaning". I think the solution lies with GRDDL and the profile attribute in HTML4/XHTML1. I put up a GRDDL profile a while back to demonstrate how this could be done: http://tommorris.org/profiles/nsfw GRDDL defines a

Re: [uf-discuss] semantic web and microformats

rg ("upper case microformats"? heh heh), and those just defined into existence by authors - and the Semantic Web. What I find neat about it is that anyone can just define a GRDDL profile and start using it - without having to spend time arguing on mailing lists. e.g. http://tommorris.org/pro