phil127 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 6 03:13:02 PDT 2017
As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement
for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future?
Am 06.08.2017 3:20 vorm. schrieb "Kevin Marks" <kevinmarks at gmail.com>:
> That use case sounds more like rel="canonical"
> On 6 Aug 2017 2:07 am, "Ed Summers" <ehs at pobox.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 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.
> > //Ed
> >  https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark
> >  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/
> > current/msg00670.html
> >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/
More information about the whatwg