[uf-discuss] rel="nsfw"

Bob Jonkman bjonkman at sobac.com
Tue Jan 2 20:06:02 PST 2007

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 <pjdoland at pjdoland.com>
Subject:	Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Posted to 'A Semantic Solution for 
Presenting NSFW Content'
Date:	Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:58:45 -0500
To:	bjonkman at sobac.com


Thanks for the information on the list discussion.

I just read through the whole list thread. There's some very good  
feedback in there, but I would like to encourage your group to resist  
the urge to make the spec too full-featured. 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. As I've said earlier, I think  
PICS and ICRA failed because of their complexity.

I, personally, think this feature will mostly be used by community- 
driven sites where the attribute would be automatically added to a  
link by server-side code whenever a user reports a post or comment as  
NSFW with a single click. That is all the more reason to just keep it  

Adoption of this as a general standard could be VERY helpful for  
wider adoption of microformats as a whole, but the simplicity of it  
is going to be key.

PJ Doland
PJ Doland Web Design, Inc.
11591 Maple Ridge Rd.
Reston, VA 20190
P: 703.621.0991 F: 208.248.3241
E-mail: pjdoland at pjdoland.com

On Jan 1, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Bob Jonkman wrote:

> Hi:  Thanx for the reply!
> There's been some discussion on your proposal on the Microformats  
> mailing list.  Consensus was
> pretty much the same as yours: PICS is too complicated; if it was  
> any good it would have
> achieved widespread adoption already.  There's a proposal to use  
> your rel="nsfw" as part of
> the hReview microformat.  This is very doable, and takes advantage  
> of existing parsers.
> The Microformat mailing list archives with the NSFW thread is at
> http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-discuss/2006- 
> December/007885.html
> --Bob.
> This is what PJ Doland <pjdoland at pjdoland.com> said
> about "Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Poste" on 30 Dec  
> 2006 at 21:18
>> Bob-
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>> As I see it, there are several problem with PICS and ICRA:
>> 1. The standards are too complicated for most bloggers to wrap-their
>> heads around. Any Jake can type ten keystrokes and take advantage of
>> my proposed standard.
>> 2. They also don't reference offsite destination anchors.
>> 3. They tend to label a whole page.
> This is what PJ Doland <pjdoland at pjdoland.com> said
> about "Re: [The Frosty Mug Revolution] New Comment Poste" on 30 Dec  
> 2006 at 20:00
>> Bob-
>> The problem with PICS and ICRA is that:
>> 1. They tend to focus on rating the content of the entire page. WIth
>> blogs and social network sites where content exists in smaller units
>> of differing theme and authorship, this seems inadequate.
>> 2. The specifications are robust enough that they are complicated on
>> a level where people don't bother with them.
>> Sticking a simple declaration on the element level is much easier and
>> simpler for content authors.
>> On Dec 30, 2006, at 3:22 AM, bjonkman at sobac.com wrote:
>>> A new comment has been posted on your blog The Frosty Mug
>>> Revolution, on entry #41577 (A Semantic Solution for Presenting
>>> NSFW Content).
>>> View this comment: <http://pj.doland.org/archives/041577.php>
>>> Edit this comment: <http://www.pjdoland.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt.cgi?
>>> __mode=view&id=1605214&_type=comment&blog_id=12>
>>> IP Address:
>>> Name: Bob Jonkman
>>> Email Address: bjonkman at sobac.com
>>> URL:
>>> Comments:
>>> I think you may be re-inventing the wheel:
>>> <a href="http://www.w3.org/PICS/">http://www.w3.org/PICS/</a>
>>> --Bob.

------- End of forwarded message -------

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list