ehs at pobox.com
Mon Aug 7 07:06:35 PDT 2017
> On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Philipp Serafin <phil127 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement
> for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future?
Yes, the quality of persistence is why I thought rel=bookmark worked best, although canonical was the relation I first thought of too.
As the IETF draft authors describe in a related blog post  canonical was dropped from consideration because it exists to "identify content that is either duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) IRI" and does not speak to the durability of the link.
More information about the whatwg