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

Frank Ellermann <> Sat, 02 July 2011 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086E81F0C51 for <>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fX9LkbbpsWAW for <>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804941F0C59 for <>; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so5013922pvh.31 for <>; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=trTr+CqEQJ2WNL3L2aZh8Oq4MbR3qV2JhxLFsz1QbIE=; b=oT9pDq2he+vkgXM87jm3+eLyEM1qMIBiQFUqsD0VOoN6JlnaUYX9SRLW02ZClBlMwZ JP3mmVlKCpIDMMznb4P4OlilhACe36OIVz5SBeP9R4bvzMP9i66elunuUl9puUEtQa6/ a3WizO50dwWqvl24jAa0NdqsTUXeDjNQgqrbI=
Received: by with SMTP id j18mr360697wff.406.1309633112145; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:58:12 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:58:33 -0000

On 1 July 2011 15:38, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> 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.
> I don't understand (yet).

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

The rel="canonical" business is for in essence identical content
available at more than one URL.  Simple example, resource xyzzy.html
at and

With a relative rel="canonical" URI in xyzzy.html I'd end up with two
different canonical URLs, but then I shouldn't use rel="canonical" in
the first place.

The idea is to get one canonical URL for all (here: both) incarnations
of xyzyy.html.  Well, that's what I meant.  But now I see that relative
can be perfectly fine if and only if all incarnations exist on the same
server, e.g., http://example/xyzzy.html?any-query could get a relative
canonical URL xyzzy.html?default or similar.  A better example in the
draft explaining when a relative canonical URL is okay could help.