Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:00:16 +0100

On 15.11.2010 12:18, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Julian Reschke<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> <http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html>
>>
>> is a better reference?
>
> Thanks Julian, I like that reference better. I'm definitely not doing
> this on behalf of Google, I just thought I would suggest it for the
> registry since it is being used. The discussion about 'duplicate'
> reminded me of it :-)

OK,

(writing just for me, not the other DEs)

I have tried to get in contact with Google with respect to this, and 
have failed.

I see the following options (just mentioning them all).

a) do not register
b) register as proposed
c) register, but create a standalone spec defining it

Let's consult the spec, see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>:

    Note that relation types can be registered by third parties, if the
    Designated Expert determines that an unregistered relation type is
    widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner.

This appears to be the case here.

At this point, I'd suggest option c): write a small spec we can publish 
as RFC, and give Google another opportunity to give feedback when it 
goes through the process (for instance as a Informational RFC, maybe as 
direct RFC Editor submission).

Ed -- would you be interested in either authoring or co-authoring that 
spec? (I'll help with the formatting mechanics).

Feedback appreciated,

Julian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:16:42 +1100

Ed,

Embarrassingly, I've overlooked a pre-existing draft:
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations/

In our defense, it predated the registry being approved...

Perhaps you could work with Sam?

Regards,

On 15/11/2010, at 1:33 PM, Ed Summers wrote:

> Relation Name:
> canonical
> 
> Description:
> A canonical page is the preferred version of a set of pages with
> highly similar content.
> 
> Reference:
> http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
> 
> Notes:
> This relation is used by web crawlers to prefer a particular URI when
> multiple URIs are available for similar content. For example, when a
> URL contains a tracking number or sort parameters.
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/