On 16/11/2014, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 16/11/2014 07:34, Yoav Nir wrote:
Imagine Wikipedia with nothing controversial: nothing about abortions,
religions, genetics, evolution…
And that will not happen, so Wikipedia will simply ignore "safe", so
browsers
set to request "safe" will just get raw Wikipedia, so "safe" will be
useless
for parents wishing to censor their children's access to Wikipedia.
This straw man serves as a handy informative illustration.
Wikipedia doesn't (currently, or likely into the future) offer a 'safe' option.
Wikipedia doesn't offer a 'safe' option, so of course the hint isn't
for them, so of course they will ignore it. Us standardising the
preference doesn't suddenly force the entire web to present
safe/unsafe versions of everything.
Thanks; this is a good illustration of why this whole thing is a pointless
fig leaf.
Once again, this hint is just a means of preempting the server's
question: "do you want safe mode?" The example that comes to mind is
Google's 'safe search', which I presume is the naming phenotype.
If they don't ask the question, they can ignore the answer.
I wonder, again, if renaming it to "Prefer: x99-bob" would assuage
most peoples' concerns, at least had the renaming happened before
opinions were formed.
--
Matthew Kerwin
http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/