IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 01 July 2011 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 6D35E1F0C37 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 T4qyu8kVNoSW for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 351C41F0C35 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Jul 2011 13:38:51 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 01 Jul 2011 15:38:51 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1++aQh2BlO+BSaTreMlNwDTZJt3MRkldmUUhoqaaO VI5Qdg9EMbUgRt
Message-ID: <4E0DCDE4.5080903@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:38:44 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
References: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de> <BANLkTinwWigPzX7rsVWber-mz+LKgKPFHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinwWigPzX7rsVWber-mz+LKgKPFHw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: 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: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:38:59 -0000

On 2011-06-30 10:24, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>>         Title           : The Canonical Link Relation
>>         Author(s)       : Maile Ohye
>>         Filename        : draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
>
> A relative canonical URL can't be a good idea.  If there is more than
> one "content URL" (in the terminology of the draft) this would result
> in more than one canonical URL, defeat the purpose, and worse, this
> could make googlebot angry.
>
> The draft could s/SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT/, I don't see any good reason
> to violate a SHOULD NOT, and if that's correct MUST NOT is clearer.

I don't understand (yet).

What do you mean by "more than one "content URL""?

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email