Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

below a set of mostly editorial comments...

Best regards, Julian

Abstract

    This specification defines the canonical link relation -- an element
    which designates the preferred version of content/URI from a set of
    duplicate or near duplicate pages.

Maybe put "canonical" in double quotes? (similar in other places)


1.  Introduction

    The canonical link relation specifies the preferred version of a URI
    from a set of identical or vastly similar content that may be

maybe just "preferred URI"?

    The canonical (target URI) MUST contain content that duplicates, is

"canonical (target) URI MUST identify content" (it's not the content of 
the URI, it's the content of the identified resource)

    extremely similar, or is a superset of the content in the context

s/in/at/

    The value of the target/canonical URI MAY:

    o  Be self-referential (context URI identical to target URI)

    o  Specify a relative or absolute URI

"Specify a URI Reference (see [RFC3986], Section 4.1), i.e., a full URI 
or a relative reference"

    o  Be the source URI of a 302, 303, or 307 redirect (Sections 10.3.3,
       10.3.4, and 10.3.8, respectively, of [RFC2616]).

Maybe "Be the source URI of a temporary redirect, such as..."?

    may designate the canonical link relation in HTML as specified in
    [RFC5988]:

Why do we cite RFC 5988 here? Should this ref HTML?

      <link rel="canonical"
            href="http://www.example.com/page.php?item=purse" />

    or alternatively, in the HTTP Header as specified in Section 5 of
    [RFC5988]:

s/Header/header field/

      Link: <http://www.example.com/page.php?item=purse>; rel="canonical"


5.  Recommendations

    Before implementing the canonical link relation, verification of the

Maybe s/implementing/adding/?