3 ms·
"Won't someone think of the children?" comes to the HTTP standard. Seriously though, this seems totally reasonable although "safe" does seem like an odd word c
by mperham 12y ago
"Won't someone think of the children?" comes to the HTTP standard.
Seriously though, this seems totally reasonable although "safe" does seem like an odd word choice. Maybe "modest" instead?
- theon144 12y agoI'm thinking it's in the same category as "Safe For Work" and "Not Safe For Work". But yeah, I expected a HTTP header that would, say, redirect to an encrypted version of the webpage, sort of like HTTPS Everywhere, but on the browser-server level.
- darklajid 12y agoNSFW is just another undefined concept. It depends on your work, on your culture/upbringing and the society you live in. If I stumble upon pictures of tits because someone posted a link to a yellow press newspaper site or a random celebrity scandal, I .. misclicked because that wouldn't interest me in the slightest. But it wouldn't be unsafe, not even for work. On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly want to end up on a nazi propaganda page (even if I'm merely looking at current splitter groups/facts around news reports about these sort of braindead idiots). I would feel very bad about leaving a trace like that - even if I don't think I'd have to face any sort of consequences. Point being: Safe™ is undefined, for minors or employers. You can try to find a GCD, a common global set - and you'll fail/end up with a balance act between false positives and misses.
- M2Ys4U 12y agoIsn't that HSTS? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security