Re: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0

BELL Scott A (
12 Apr 1995 08:09:47 U

Message-Id: <>
Date: 12 Apr 1995 08:09:47 U
From: "BELL Scott A" <>
Subject: RE: A Proposal for a New Standard in HTML 3.0
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <>

>From: 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')
>What I propose is a parameter placed within the HTML text. 
>the tag could be incorporated as follows:
>                         <BODY PC=ON>
>Where 'PC' represents 'Parental Control'.  This tag would VOLUNTARILY
>placed in HTML documents by people such as Penthouse or Playboy...
>with an adult or explicit content.
>The next step is to make a MINOR modification in web browsers.  As
>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
>nor could the user do a SAVE AS of the doucment.

 I don't think the level of security your are describing should be
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

>I believe such a feature would have the following benefits.
>        1)  Minimal HTML document modification by adult sites. (Only 1
>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
   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
>propose this to the WWW community as a whole.
>Thank you.
>John-Paul Clark

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

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