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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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...
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
