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

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:13:55 +0100

So,

we somehow need to decide how to proceed with this one.

Did anybody hear from Sam?

Best regards, Julian

On 08.12.2010 06:16, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> link-relations mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations
>

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:32:40 -0500

Hi Sam,

The link-relations registry folks (RFC 5988) would like to add
canonical to the registry [1,2]. Mark Nottingham noticed that you have
a IETF draft [3] that describes canonical as well as current,
immutable, latest, mirror, permalink and shortlink...which is great!

The draft just recently expired last month. I was wondering what it
would take for us to push this forward, perhaps as an Informational
RFC so we can document the use of canonical (and perhaps the others?).
Did you get any feedback on the draft? As an aside, it would be
interesting to know if Google is currently using the other link
relations in any way. I think the link-relations discussion list (cc'd
here) would be a good place to discuss it.

Julian, Mark would Sam's draft need to be an RFC before we could link
to it from the registry? I guess a similar hosted at google.com would
work as well?

//Ed

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/
[2] http://paramsr.us/tracker/issue25
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations-01.txt

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:39:55 +0100

On 17.02.2011 14:32, Ed Summers wrote:
> ...
> ...

 From IETF's point of view, IDs are volatile documents that disappear 
when they expire. So no, this wouldn't be sufficient.

Hosting a document at google.com should work if the URI looks stable.

Optimally, we'd just finish the Internet Draft and get it published...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:40:45 -0500

Ahh, just got a bounce for Sam's email address at google.com, saying
that he no longer works there. The bounce said to forward
correspondence to [email-masked], so I'll try to find a current
email address for Sam and resend to both.

//Ed

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:07:09 -0500

Hi Sam,

The draft just recently expired last month. And I noticed from a
bounce message to [email-masked] that you have changed employment. I
was wondering what it would take for us to push this forward, perhaps
as an Informational RFC so we can document the use of canonical (and
perhaps the others?). Did you get any feedback on the draft? As an
aside, it would be interesting to know if Google is currently using
the other link relations in any way. I think the link-relations
discussion list (cc'd here) would be a good place to discuss it.

//Ed