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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

Hello Maile,

Several comments to your draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.

There is the Intended Status missing in it.  I suppose Informational 
should be fine.

> 1. Introduction
>
>    The canonical link relation specifies the preferred version of a URI
I think some introductory text on linking, probably based on RFC 5988, 
should go here.

Section 2:

>     Presence of the canonical link relation indicates
>     to applications, such as search engines, that they MAY:
I wonder why it's MAY; in this case implementations (explicitly, those 
apps which interpret Link: headers and corresponding construction in 
HTML) will be free to ignore it.  I think normative SHOULD should be OK 
(sorry for pun).

I support the remark from Frank Ellermann 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02870.html) about 
SHOULD NOTs in the document.

>     The value of the target/canonical URI MAY:
I suppose omitting "value of the" should be better, since there is no 
such term in RFC 3986.  In fact, when referring the URI, we mean its 
value, meaning.

>     o  Exist on a different protocol: http to https, or vice versa
You probably meant URI scheme here, since https isn't a separate 
protocol.  As before these points we had "The value of the 
target/canonical URI MAY" or, if you consider my comment above, "The 
target/canonical URI MAY", this point may be reworded as "Have different 
scheme names" (which suits the second variant of a preface to this list 
better).

Reading section 3 and 5 of the draft, it seems that is mandates use of 
HTTP when referring to canonical URIs.  And what is the situation when 
target URI is a 'ftp' or 'gopher' URI?  Section 3 allows different 
scheme names in context/target URIs, if I understand it correctly.  
Therefore, unless it is deliberately, I think any mention of HTTP should 
be replaced by more generic regulations.

> 8.  Internationalisation Considerations
>
>     In designating a canonical URI, please see [RFC3986] for information
>     on URI encoding.
URIs themselves are not internationalized, in terms of RFC 3536, which 
defined:

>     internationalization
>
>        In the IETF, "internationalization" means to add or improve the
>        handling of non-ASCII text in a protocol.<NONE>
IRIs serve for this purpose.  I recommend either to rename the section 
to Encoding considerations or skip it at all ( I personally like 2nd 
variant).

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

27.06.2011 11:20, Julian Reschke wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
>
>     Title           : The Canonical Link Relation
>     Author(s)       : Maile Ohye
>     Filename        : draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
>     Pages           : 6
>     Date            : 2011-06-26
>