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

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Mon, 04 July 2011 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DA821F87D7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DEDW0q1QYbq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93F4921F87D4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so1347712pzk.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ElE9sYzGtrTkVhYfplPlXvUZHdbJvTC+oSD2og5m8jU=; b=TZB2Gl+UgZqjyvilPAKWYiXQnLdpmeTvz1GpOV/N46JIvOVC7KFXPj7VRnrUSPLjIt cu/8APMUofKjIysqPkConL/ANwP79T+zXDnUxzX6xp8WCC6nG0RJQu591GWYceVx/7OC vPwZc6S7+0c9C6QmRwtZwRGlss1EyzymgaBR8=
Received: by 10.142.165.13 with SMTP id n13mr3202966wfe.123.1309816717122; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.88.9 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAGKau1GyaxpgZsZmUcqZp1iUG6wrvSG3LHM3Pq52AjXfZz900Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de> <4E0D3EA5.7010803@gmail.com> <4E0DCFEF.20206@gmx.de> <4E0DEA77.3050007@gmail.com> <4E0E0E76.2080007@gmail.com> <4E0E995A.7060800@gmail.com> <4E0F1058.3050201@gmail.com> <1309613470.2807.17.camel@mackerel> <4E0F1F2F.8020504@gmail.com> <CAGKau1GyaxpgZsZmUcqZp1iUG6wrvSG3LHM3Pq52AjXfZz900Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:58:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybpxr0giA4T2bmvAbe2nJW3-U8HBeWKboaC_380hS6Jkow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maile Ohye <maileko@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: joachim@kupke.za.net, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:58:38 -0000

On 3 July 2011 03:23, Maile Ohye wrote:

Hi, I've stripped the "link relations expert review list" from the CC:
keeping only the IETF apps list.

> In case this email displays as plain text

Sadly it didn't...  <gd&r>  About "relative canonical URLs":

> We could add a relative URL in the Examples section

Good, thanks.  About "SHOULD vs. MUST":

> We prefer SHOULD NOT for a few reasons.
> 1) If we outlawed multiple canonicals using MUST NOT, we
> would effectively call the HTML invalid. In reality, the
> HTML will still be processed, though it’s likely that
> search engines will ignore both/all rel=canonicals.

If you are very sure that violations of the SHOULD NOT are
only *ignored* I'm fine with it.  But search engines could
also treat violations as some kind of "link farming" and
punish authors for their intended or unintended violations.

In that case authors would be better off with a MUST NOT
clearly indicating that it is their own fault if they get
rel="canonical" wrong -- after all they are not forced to
use rel="canonical".

IOW, if you have "only" a SHOULD NOT for publishers you
might need a corresponding "MUST ignore violations" for
web crawlers.

> Worse, for the cases where somebody might rel=canonical
> to a 404, etc.

Ugh.  A typical use case is a simple site with a mirror,
in that case a 404 should be temporary:  New pages on the
mirror(s) not yet available under their canonical URL, or
old pages deleted under their canonical URL still found
on the mirror(s).

You are right, a MUST NOT does not fly for this scenario.

-Frank