Subject: [link-relations] rel="canonical"

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:22:25 +0200

Hi, I've found the list archive, and Peter told the IETF secretary
that this list can be added to http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html

Please s/similar similar/similar/ in my registration request.  That
is in essence a dupe, you already got a similar registration request
some weeks ago from Ed Summers.

Sorry, I didn't know that, just pick what you like better.  I agree
with Julian that this is a case for...

   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.

As specification the original (vintage 2009-02-19) blog entry at
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
is not better than the "webmaster help" page (updated 2011-03-20).

Apparently I-D.johnston-addressing-link-relations-01 is expired, so
that doesn't help at the moment.  It also discussed other relations.

In February Julian wrote:

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

The "Google webmaster tools" exist for some years, but that is of
course no guarantee for their 'About rel="canonical"' help page.
You could BE BOLD and copy the content to the microformats wiki,
they already host a rel="nofollow" text (apparently waiting for a
better specification since 2005).

IMO rel="canonical" doesn't really need an RFC - it is a rather
dubious name and very near to rel="bookmark" or rel="self", but
nevertheless it needs to be registered.

- Frank