# Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

Terje Norderhaug (Norderhaug.CHI@xerox.com)
Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:15:24 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Darren New: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Maybe in reply to: Martijn Koster: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Next in thread: Kee Hinckley: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"

    Message-Id: <ac0b85d8040210044e1e@[130.191.9.113]>

    Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:15:24 -0800

    To: Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk>,

    From: Norderhaug.CHI@xerox.com (Terje Norderhaug)

    Subject: Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

At 5:54 AM 6/19/95, Martijn Koster wrote:
>I agree it's a quick way in that the proposal is simple, and that no
>server-side changes are required. You still need to change clients to
>be KidCode aware, but if the US congress is anything to go by I expect
>companies will be falling over eachother trying to prove just how much
>they are against pornography.

"Rating" of content of course also makes it easier to find what you're
looking for if you are into those types of content. This backs up on that
it is just a subset of more advanced search capabilities.

>I think the KidCode solution is technically the wrong way to do it,
>because it changes the nature of a URL, which from the Web's
>conception has been nothing more than a location, to include an access
>policy.
>
>I'd strongly urge this group to consider a resource's location and
>access policy as seperate bits of information.

Agree. Consider to separate it out as an attribute to the anchor tag. This will
allow the use of added content information both for a link and for a
labeled content container. This would also make it easier for a browser
to exchange it with an alternative rating retrieved from a database,
providing a scheme more suited for adaption. It would allow more exact
location of the metainformation ("rating") than using a HTTP header.

>However, I am rather disturbed to see that the search for "the RIGHT
>way" is cut short just because politically correct people are in a
>hurry. When even authors of proposed standards aren't willing to
>assert theirs is a RIGHT way we have a problem . I'd like to be able
>to discuss proposed standards on their technical merit, without
>political accusations getting in the way.

While I agree on the first part of this statement, I strongly disagree
with that this technology should be discussed without political accusations.
The whole rating issue cannot be separated from political and social
matters. Most technical decisions regarding this will have political and
social consequences. Creating these technical standards has to do about
designing society. Thus, either the technical discussion should wait until
we are done with the social issues, or preferably the technical and social
discussion should go hand in hand.

-- Terje <Norderhaug.CHI@xerox.com>
<URL:http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/>

- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Previous message: Darren New: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Maybe in reply to: Martijn Koster: "Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"
- Next in thread: Kee Hinckley: "Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )"