At 09:34 25/03/04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 09:12:22PM -0800, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > Seems to me in the .xxx specific case, depending on how it is > handled, it would be a good idea to have such a sTLD. Read RFC 3675 ".sex Considered Dangerous" first.
Quite US and quite dogmatic as it is. Mostly advises PICS. Not a bad idea. But probably not one which will fly in that state? http://www.w3.org/PICS/ abstract: What's New - PICS Rating Vocabularies in XML/RDF (W3C NOTE 27 March 2000) - Statement on Using PICS Well (1 June 1998) - PICS Signed Labels (DSig) 1.0 Specification (27 May 1998) But may be other simpler ways to make it, if consumer/market demand is considered? This could be a real topic for the GA. Thank you for pointing it out. jfc