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
or even hReview.
The xfolk version could look like this:
div class=xfolkentry
a class=taggedlinked href=http://goatse.cx;check this out!/a
(a rel=tag href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW;NSFW/a)/div
That would also tag the *linking* page as NSFW.
(In fact, that seems to be an issue
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
This is what Dougal Campbell microformats-discuss@microformats.org 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
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
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
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
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
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
Andy said:
The xfolk version could look like this:
div class=xfolkentry
a class=taggedlinked href=http://goatse.cx;check this out!/a
(a rel=tag href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW;NSFW/a)/div
That would also tag the *linking* page as NSFW.
(In fact, that seems to be an issue
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The xfolk version could look like this:
div class=xfolkentry
a class=taggedlinked href=http://goatse.cx;check this out!/a
(a rel=tag href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW;NSFW/a)/div
That would also tag the *linking* page
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
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
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
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
? 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
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
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
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
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
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
href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW;NSFW/a)
/div
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
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
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
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
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
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
Scott Reynen wrote:
This was discussed at some length last October:
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2005-October/001684.html
Drew specifically wants to add tags to content within the page, not to
links to a page. IE:
img class=NSFW-nudity src... /
Atamido
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
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
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
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'
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
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
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
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.w3
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
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
.
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
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
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
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 small NSFW in parens, but I digress. I was
just wondering about
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 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
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 must confess I'm
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
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
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
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
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
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 that anyone over 13 should be
fine. And you
' 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
microformats-discuss
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/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2005-
October/001684.html
Right, which
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
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
On Jan 3, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On:
http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag#Abstract
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.
stop obvious abuse like a
href=http://technorati.com/tag/nasty+nsfw+stuff; rel=tagnice
worksafe stuff/a being indexed. That way your expectations based on
visible text would be addressed as well.
cheers,
Ben
--
--- http://www.200ok.com.au/
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly
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 it. Well, except
under specific
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
profile a while back to demonstrate how this could be done:
http://tommorris.org/profiles/nsfw
GRDDL defines a method by which HTML can be understood as RDF.
Basically, you put URL(s) in the head/@profile attribute to say this
page contains metadata following this profile. A GRDDL agent then
loads
define a GRDDL profile and start
using it - without having to spend time arguing on mailing lists.
e.g. http://tommorris.org/profiles/nsfw
I'm working on showing ways that we can do the sort of mashup-style
behaviour that is currently done with APIs quite easily with the
Semantic Web approach. Here's
61 matches
Mail list logo
