This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 6999 - Adding tag <NSFW>
Summary: Adding tag <NSFW>
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P1 enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Keywords: NoReply
Depends on:
Reported: 2009-06-05 19:21 UTC by elfguy
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:31 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:


Description elfguy 2009-06-05 19:21:19 UTC
One of the most common descriptive notes people have to write using text when they post links or images to blogs, comments or anywhere in HTML is to say "this link is not safe for work" or simply "NSFW". By adding the <NSFW> tag, this could be made much simpler and standardized. Browsers could then have an option to automatically hide all <NSFW> content. A tag is preferred to an attribute since it could then also be used around content and not just links.

<nsfw><a href="">Pics here!</a></nsfw>
<nsfw><img src="badkitten.jpg"></nsfw>
Comment 1 Jaap 2009-06-12 09:12:08 UTC
An attribute is probably a better idea than an element.
Perhaps this should be generalized into some sort of content-rating attribute.

For example:
<html contentrating="pornographic"/>
<div contentrating="violent">...</div>

Altogether this is probably a bad idea since it's hard to enforce and easy to abuse.
Comment 2 elfguy 2009-06-12 12:05:25 UTC
There are many reasons why I think <nsfw> would be better. First it's a well known descriptor amongst online forums, board, sharing sites, etc, and would not require additional learning on the part of the user. Second, any kind of online posting engine such as a board or comment system that already supports a subset of HTML tags could easily add the NSFW one, but it'd be nearly impossible to add parameters like that.
Comment 3 Oscar Godson 2009-06-12 19:08:11 UTC
This is not a good idea at all. It's a nice concept but for a valid HTML tag, not so good.

1. NSFW is an opinion & why would it be not safe for work, but it'd be safe for at home? A picture of a naked lady is not going to go over well at home either for many people. The name would need to be changed as it doesn't actually make sense semantically.

2. Hiding content should be left to CSS only. If not, this can and will be abused beyond belief.

3. Why would we add NSFW if we haven't added or even thought about <lol>,<lmao>,<wtf> or <oh>. NSFW is Internet slang along with those.

I'm not opposed to the idea of marking content, but it should be done in a semantic way such as using attributes.

For example, <div content="pornographic"> or <img content="violent">, or even <a content="language">
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2009-06-28 10:50:37 UTC
This is basically just a specific case of the semantic provided already by the <details> element.

Instead of:

  nude men on a beach:
     <img src="..." alt="...">


     <legend> NSFW - nude men on a beach </legend>
     <img src="..." alt="...">
Comment 5 Maciej Stachowiak 2010-03-14 14:48:14 UTC
This bug predates the HTML Working Group Decision Policy.

If you are satisfied with the resolution of this bug, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:

This bug is now being moved to VERIFIED. Please respond within two weeks. If this bug is not closed, reopened or escalated within two weeks, it may be marked as NoReply and will no longer be considered a pending comment.