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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

02.07.2011 15:34, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Þann lau  2.júl 2011 04:06, skrifaði Mykyta Yevstifeyev:
>> First, this was an example only. Next, my point was that the document
>> makes HTTP/'http' scheme mandatory in context/target URIs, which I don't
>> think is appropriate, since canonical URI may refer to a resource
>> accessible via other protocol. Even though HTTP is going to be the most
>> often use case of canonical link relation, we shouldn't exclude other
>> protocols.
> I agree. However, I don't understand the need for forbidding canonical 
> links to resources with multiple representations. Are there not to be 
> canonical links from representations of a resource to the resource 
> (i.e. from /spec.html and /spec.txt to /spec)?
Probably such restriction is set because multiple representation choice 
may ultimately refer the user to a resource which is not canonical.  A 
_definite_ canonical resource is necessary and required.