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
