Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type

[Herbert Van de Sompel <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Ed Summers <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Herbert,
>
> > On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Herbert Van de Sompel <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > * On August 5, Ed Summers posted a question regarding applying
> "bookmark" to <link> to the WHATWG list, see
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/
> 2017Aug/0001.html. There are no responses to this post, so far.
>
> There have been a few responses if you look at the list of emails for
> August:
>
>     https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2017Aug/
>
> > * On August 9, Ed Summer posted a similar question to WHATWG/HTML
> GitHub, see https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2899. There is a
> reaction from @annevk who (1) speculates that the reason "bookmark" is not
> to be used with <link> might be in order not to overlap with "canonical"
> (2) suggests the use of "canonical" :-)
>
> Yes, canonical seems to be the relation that most people are reaching for
> initially. I did myself on reading your I-D. The fact that seasoned hands
> like Kevin Marks and Anne van Kesteren are as well says something.
>
> > * Michael Nelson has further explored "bookmark" and has confirmed that
> there effectively is a reason for not allowing "bookmark" in <link>. It is
> related to its target use case: surfacing a link for content contained in a
> *part* of a page. Hence, Michael concludes that making "bookmark" usable
> with <link> will most likely not happen. @annevk's GitHub response does not
> seem to contradict that. Michael based his findings on studying
> http://tantek.com/log/2002/11.html#L20021128t1352 and
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-bookmark. He
> may write another blog post about this, but, for now, here's how he
> explained on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/moments/895081563653902336
>
> Yes, it looks like that's probably where things will sit. As Anne
> indicated it's likely that rel=bookmark cannot be used with <link> because
> of perceived confusion it would cause with canonical. The semantics of
> parts of pages vs the page itself don't seem terribly significant to me
> from an implementation perspective. Unfortunately 'identifier' will also
> probably cause some confusion as well. As systems that rely on 'identifier'
> get developed that will be something for them to deal with.
>
> Thanks for considering all the questions and tracking the conversation
> over on the WHATWG list. It speaks to the spirit of what you all are trying
> to achieve with this I-D.
>
>
Thanks for thinking along with us, Ed!

Cheers

herbert


> //Ed




-- 
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

==