Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread John Allsopp
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Scott Reynen
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

2006-12-30 Thread Bob Jonkman
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2008-05-06 Thread Ryan King
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread Colin Barrett
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

RE: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread Mike Schinkel
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread Frances Berriman
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

RE: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-31 Thread Mike Schinkel
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Ciaran McNulty
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

RE: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Eran
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

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

2007-01-01 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread John Allsopp
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Chris Casciano
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread Ben Buchanan
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

2008-05-06 Thread Tom Morris
? 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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2008-05-06 Thread Gordon Oheim
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

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

2006-07-27 Thread Scott Reynen
On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Paul Bryson wrote: Drew specifically wants to add tags to content within the page, not to links to a page. IE: img class=NSFW-nudity src... / Yeah, I suspect that's a difference that doesn't really change much about the the problem. Some of the points made

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread B.K. DeLong
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

2006-12-29 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread Colin Barrett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-31 Thread Scott Reynen
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

RE: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Eran
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2008-05-06 Thread Scott Reynen
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Frances Berriman
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

2006-12-29 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Colin Barrett
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

[uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2008-05-06 Thread Gordon Oheim
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

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

2006-07-27 Thread Paul Bryson
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

[uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Robert Crowther
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

2006-12-29 Thread Frances Berriman
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Scott Reynen
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

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

2006-12-29 Thread Andy Mabbett
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'

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Ben Buchanan
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

2007-01-01 Thread Colin Barrett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Colin Barrett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Angus McIntyre
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Dougal Campbell
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

RE: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-30 Thread Mike Schinkel
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] Re: Exploratory discussion: content rating

2006-07-27 Thread Drew McLellan
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Ciaran McNulty
. 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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-03 Thread Andy Mabbett
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: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2008-05-06 Thread Manu Sporny
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 a very useful concept and merits further discussion

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

2006-07-27 Thread Scott Reynen
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

[uf-discuss] Re: Use with Greasemonkey?

2006-08-12 Thread Benjamin West
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Chris Casciano
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

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

2007-02-01 Thread Ciaran McNulty
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2008-05-06 Thread Charles Iliya Krempeaux
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-02 Thread Bob Jonkman
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

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

2006-12-29 Thread Frances Berriman
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2007-01-01 Thread Ciaran McNulty
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

2006-07-27 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
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

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

2006-07-27 Thread Drew McLellan
' 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

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

2006-07-27 Thread Tantek Çelik
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

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=nsfw

2006-12-29 Thread Frances Berriman
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

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

2007-01-03 Thread Brian Suda
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)

2007-01-03 Thread Kevin Marks
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.

Re: [uf-discuss] rel=tag

2007-01-04 Thread Ben Buchanan
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

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

2007-02-01 Thread Derrick Lyndon Pallas
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

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

2006-07-27 Thread Dave Cardwell
(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 that anyone

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

2007-01-03 Thread Andy Mabbett
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

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

2007-09-17 Thread Tom Morris
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

Re: [uf-discuss] semantic web and microformats

2007-10-09 Thread Tom Morris
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