[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

[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.

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

> 2. this is not visible metadata (nor is nofollow, for that matter)

Nor are tags, for that matter. Tags encourage visible meta-data, but
the actual functional meta-data is invisible[1]. It's a uf
"requirement" which is inconsistently maintained.

> It certainly, as has been more than once mentioned, doesn't pave the
> cowpaths (where explicit visible content in the page (though not
> always in the link content) is how nsfw is almost invariably indicated.)

Perhaps a more workable uf would be:

<a href="URL">Blah blah <abbr title="full text"
class="nsfw">language/culture-appropriate warning text</abbr></a>

This would allow for a consistent marker (the class); the warning
remains visible; it can only apply to one <a> (unambiguous).

At any rate, this does appear to be a moot point[2]. Out of curiosity,
is there a formal set of criteria that are applied to deeming a uf
"rejected"?

cheers,

Ben

[1] I expand on my thoughts at
http://weblog.200ok.com.au/2006/01/limitations-of-rel-microformat.html
[2] http://microformats.org/wiki/rejected-formats#Content_Rating

-- 
--- <http://www.200ok.com.au/>
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson