[8404] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Kristol)
Tue Jun 20 18:35:13 1995
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 18:04:33 EDT
From: dmk@allegra.att.com (Dave Kristol)
To: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
Cc: www-talk@www10.w3.org
Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk> said:
> My suggestion of using a KidCode HTTP header didn't provoke much
> response, while I think it has some advantages: the user gets the
> choice, it scales, it can be added to exisiting code easily, scales,
> doesn't require a third party infrastructure, and will be quite easy
> to establish as a standard since it is a simple extension to http. It
> can also easily coexist with community schemes.
>
> I'd appreciate some feedback: is the lack of support for protocols
> other than HTTP perceived to be a big problem? Will UR[CA]
> infrastructure takes as much time to deploy as adding a header to
> existing code? Is the rush for an interrim solution justified? Is an
> HTTP header a good idea?
Okay, here's some feedback. I prefer a KidCode header. I think
building the information into the URL is a bad idea for all the reasons
stated previously.
A KidCode-capable client could block access to "unrated" documents that
have no KidCode header, or it could just call them "unrated" and
display them. That could be a configurable option.
I still have fundamental problems with the notion that a server can
rate itself, nevermind censor itself. A document I consider
inoffensive may prove to be offensive elsewhere. I don't see where the
objective criteria are. Consider nudity. In some countries, a picture
showing an otherwise fully clothed woman's bare ankle or arm might be
considered nudity. What constitutes nudity in the U.S.? A rear view
of a naked woman? (It's always women, isn't it!?) A front view of a
naked woman from just above the nipples? (Can I say "nipples"? Or is
that obscene?)
Dave Kristol
