@KevinMarks @cwebber @sivy

Content Warnings should be an extension field. They never should have been used as a project-specific overload to an existing data element. I think you'll find that if this extension is offered that many projects will adopt it. Please don't re-use either name or summary for this.

I would encourage those interested in this topic to review the debate we had on putting such content warnings into email and USENET back in the late 80s and early 90s. There are like ten years of heated debate involving hundreds of people from many related disciplines that it would be a shame to repeat in its entirety. Eventually it was dropped because a majority consensus couldn't be reached and several vendors just started doing their own thing - so nothing has changed in 30 some-odd years. In a nutshell, the most popular expressions ended up centring on an enum field of attributes to explain the content warning. Light nudity, "graphic" nudity, sex, bestiality, drugs, alcohol, smoking, violence and death were some of the most frequently requested attributes. A free form field wasn't very popular because of translation issues and as we've seen a free form field is now being use to provide content warning for toaster settings or favourite colours and defeats the intended purpose.

There may even be an internet draft submission or two in the archives.