Re: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0

BELL Scott A (bell_scott_a@oslmac.osl.or.gov)
12 Apr 1995 08:09:47 U


Message-Id: <199504121535.IAA17775@osshe.edu>
Date: 12 Apr 1995 08:09:47 U
From: "BELL Scott A" <bell_scott_a@oslmac.osl.or.gov>
Subject: RE: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <www-html@www10.w3.org>

>From: jpaul@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu on Tue, Apr 11, 1995 5:16 PM
>Subject: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>
>
<< Comments on Paul's Fine Editor Removed >>
>
>If the WWW becomes the consumer playground business would like, we
>may soon
>find ourselves in a censorship (or at least 'parental control')
quandry.
>What I propose is a parameter placed within the HTML text. 
>Specifically,
>the tag could be incorporated as follows:
>                         <BODY PC=ON>
>
>Where 'PC' represents 'Parental Control'.  This tag would VOLUNTARILY
>be
>placed in HTML documents by people such as Penthouse or Playboy...
>anyone
>with an adult or explicit content.
>
>The next step is to make a MINOR modification in web browsers.  As
>they
>would read the document, the PC flag would alert the browser to check
>a user
>specified option to determine if 'PC' documents could be displayed.
>Obviously, a parent would be able to set a password within Netscape or
>Mosaic, allowing these documents to be retrieved.  Also, if 'PC' were
>activated, the browser would not allow the documents source to be
>viewed,
>nor could the user do a SAVE AS of the doucment.

 I don't think the level of security your are describing should be
imposed 
at the document level. HTML is an SGML DTD, so there should be no
display/security/editorial definition there. You might have to have a
"filter file"( similar to the UNIX 'filter' file for mail ) to do this.
That way you catch the incoming packet before it even reaches the
viewer.

>
>I believe such a feature would have the following benefits.
>        1)  Minimal HTML document modification by adult sites. (Only 1
>line
>per doc.)
>        2)  No modifications to HTTP servers.
>        3)  Minimal modifications to existing web browsers.
>       4)  Still allowing freedom of speech across the net.
         
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yet, invariably, it's dependent on who has the password control. It's
not freedom of speech in that manner if I'm not allowed to hear what
your saying, even though you can speak it! 

>        5)  Providing a secure method for parents to control what
enters >the
>household.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   This can also be provided by watching what sites your kids access,
or warning them in the first place NOT to access particular sites. But
that's for a different group... :>

>I welcome your comments to this suggestion, as well as advise on how
>to
>propose this to the WWW community as a whole.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Cordially,
>
>John-Paul Clark
>jpaul@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
>
>HTTP://nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu/~jpaul

A interesting idea, even if I don't agree with it. 
Thanks, Paul.

Scott
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| Scott Bell - Systems Analyst |   Nothing happens unless 
| Sec. of State/IS Div.               |        first a dream.
| scott.a.bell@state.or.us          |      - Carl Sandberg
|========================================================
| "I speak for myself and no one else" - #include disclaimer.h
| Cbr600f2VolleyballGuitarsMy familyComputersEverything else
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-