[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

Andy Mabbett andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Mon Jan 1 10:46:21 PST 2007

In message
<cdc278e10701010929u1cfe6dcfjd77cc79c9b9656dc at mail.gmail.com>, Ciaran
McNulty <mail at ciaranmcnulty.com> 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 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 being linked to, and for which tagging is not

They are clearly *NOT* the same, so I've removed reference to the latter
from the "rejected formats" page:


For the current use-case, what seems to be need (or, perhaps, "wanted")
is a way of labelling an "a" element, for which:


might be more appropriate. So we might, hypothetically, use the ICRA



        <a class="icra injury-human">

        <a class="icra visible-genitals artistic">

For the sake of transparency, I should state that I am against a uF for
rating linked pages as "NSFW" (on in any other, similarly arbitrary and
culturally insensitive manner); I am ambivalent about a uF for rating
linked pages according to a /relatively/ neutral, descriptive schema
such as ICRA:


though I note that the ICRA vocabulary is itself limited (the film
"Bambi" would be rated as violent, for instance; there're no categories
for topless men, people in underwear, etc.; and there is no method for
encoding "degree" - a sentence such as "Lord Willoughby de Broke shot a
bird on his estate at Compton Verney" is rated in the same way as a
graphic visual depiction of a bullfight or an abattoir. Much of the
wording (e.g. "harmful acts") is still highly subjective.)

Andy Mabbett

                        Happy New Year!

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list