Re: Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )

• To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
• Subject: Re: Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )
• From: Prentiss Riddle <riddle@is.rice.edu>
• Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 05:57:04 -0600 (CST)
• In-Reply-To: <199602121906.LAA18846@Mjosa.Stanford.EDU> from "Christian Mogensen" at Feb 12, 96 11:06:57 am

> From: Christian Mogensen <mogens@Mjosa.Stanford.EDU>
> To: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 11:06:57 -0800
> 
> Ok, now we're back on more solid ground: content rating, both first,
> second and third party rating systems are covered by the PICS proposal
> from the W3C.  PICS has the advantage of having wide support and being
> fairly simple to implement.
> 
> PICS: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/

My own inclination might be to prefer PICS because it is an open
standard, but it's not the only content rating standard out there.  For
information on others see:

	http://www.vtw.org/pubs/ipcfaq

-- Prentiss Riddle ("aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada") riddle@rice.edu
-- RiceInfo Administrator, Rice University / http://is.rice.edu/~riddle
-- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

• Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )
• From: Christian Mogensen <mogens@Mjosa.Stanford.EDU>

• Previous: Content rating mechanisms (was Re: Child Pornography (fwd) )
• Next: Winword Macro Viruses: unsafe to use Word as a viewer?
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread