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

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

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

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 imagin

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

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

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

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

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 isn't the corre

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

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 ele

[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

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 a

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="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 supposition, presented as fact. >

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

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 NSF

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 argument that rev="nsfw" is appr

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)> >> That would also tag the *linking* page as "NSFW". >> >> (In fact, that seems to be an

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] 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 be an issue with xfolk in general...) > Actually I'd say this is

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 page rather than describing the link relationshi

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

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 >

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

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 wh

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 relationship. Having re-read the original

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

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 do

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

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 t

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: [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 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 rel

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 destination and source documents

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 the time. But I think in > >> practice, almost no one is publis

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 practice, almost no one is pu

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 people here have read numerous ti

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 woman would be "sfw" whereas in others

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 > ratings with links, and many pe

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 content authors to use, n

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. That's "something useful in

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 actually as vague as peo

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, since I would look at it another

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"

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 use

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. >> >> That's "something useful in a large judeo-christian western >>democ

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"

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 i

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

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] 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"

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

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

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 large judeo-christian western democracy", then... Wh

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 Javascript

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 previously (i.e.

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 web today. That's "something useful in

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"

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 a

[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 _