[1474] in WWW Security List Archive
Re: Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Prentiss Riddle)
Tue Feb 13 10:31:48 1996
From: Prentiss Riddle <riddle@is.rice.edu>
To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 05:57:04 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <199602121906.LAA18846@Mjosa.Stanford.EDU> from "Christian Mogensen" at Feb 12, 96 11:06:57 am
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
> From: Christian Mogensen <mogens@Mjosa.Stanford.EDU>
> To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 11:06:57 -0800
>
> Ok, now we're back on more solid ground: content rating, both first,
> second and third party rating systems are covered by the PICS proposal
> from the W3C. PICS has the advantage of having wide support and being
> fairly simple to implement.
>
> PICS: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/
My own inclination might be to prefer PICS because it is an open
standard, but it's not the only content rating standard out there. For
information on others see:
http://www.vtw.org/pubs/ipcfaq
-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
-- RiceInfo Administrator, Rice University / http://is.rice.edu/~riddle
-- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.
