- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:03:19 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10904 --- Comment #11 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-01-27 00:03:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > Let's not get sidetracked discussing parenting philosophy, shall we? No matter > what we think about the issue, <video> is the wrong place to solve this on, and > it makes no sense for HTML as a whole either. There is virtually no incentive > for publishers to mark up their content as being unsuitable for certain > audiences, so they won't. Sites like YouTube already flag some videos as appropriate only for adult audiences, so they'd presumably have no objection to using this markup if it were actually useful. Sites could also be required to include the metadata by law or by industry guidelines, the way it works in some countries for movies and games. Clearly not everyone would use such markup, but if it had a useful effect, I expect some sites might use it. (But it might not have a useful effect, because *implementers* wouldn't bother because it doesn't work reliably enough given how many small sites are out there.) > Without some concrete idea about how you would solve this technically *in > HTML*, I assume the chairs won't allow this to be escalated to an ISSUE... >From what I've observed, the chairs allow issues like this to be escalated and then just die on the call for proposals since no one has anything concrete to say. Presumably this is so that they don't have to make judgment calls except in the minority of cases that actually proceed to a survey. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 00:03:21 UTC