d at domenic.me
Sat Aug 5 18:19:28 PDT 2017
(Remember to use the HTML Standard, located at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-bookmark, not any forks of it.)
Right now the bookmark link relation has a specific purpose, as you can read in the spec:
> The bookmark keyword gives a permalink for the nearest ancestor article element of the linking element in question, or of the section the linking element is most closely associated with, if there are no ancestor article elements.
Your proposal is essentially to give it an entirely separate meaning when used in the context of the <link> element, but that's not usually how we share link relations between the different elements: cf. alternate, author, help, license, next, etc.
At least, that is how I understand; I'm having a hard time distinguishing what "identifier" is for in practice, and in particular why it is different than "canonical".
From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Ed Summers
Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 21:07
To: whatwg at whatwg.org
Subject: [whatwg] rel=bookmark
I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a pointer to previous discussion, about why the bookmark link relation can't be used with the <link> element .
The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list  where a new link relation has been proposed to encourage persistent linking . The proposed 'identifier' relation seems to closely resemble the idea of a permalink (a persistent link) that can be found in the definition of bookmark. If bookmark allowed use with the <link> element then I think there would be less of a demonstrated need for the new 'identifier' link relation.
Thanks for any information you can provide. I apologize if I'm restarting a conversation that has already happened.
More information about the whatwg