Return-Path: X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B8513241D for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:25:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOzVRGja0_d2 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AADB132412 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 16so39373766qtz.4 for ; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:25:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FIeb/smkOPvNBBD86XVy7mMF4Tu3IVigLaBjqtK1w6g=; b=R8cMgF12zfaqUvld4jXVE3TAr8qqxNjXkOLqCYzNwQaa7/pYtrsrfEZtMw4zrvR9qU FSzGqU5bpb4s7HI4kgMRF3OKpcyeiXawBlDlsY2o1cP3VHsPVa8Ikly5BEPL/1AUWcx5 nfXGDVl6IcEZlWncHXFO7EjsqcK5ojnEoY2Y3DWIgDN/JpQ2bL6LVRxyM/KUB9ogijRJ 2R5EZV70ziJ4xWugvHJ1MfwRLmIsw9Srf0MtrgcbVnBzZvRUADWyWoZzGjc8xRHWaL5X gRGVjdyh486GLwuqIFmJeLoxZTwZzh23+V3FBFSKmz3nP+N508NouklI88UxHMI6+Fbb uBFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FIeb/smkOPvNBBD86XVy7mMF4Tu3IVigLaBjqtK1w6g=; b=RMWVnR78kTMrV/Z/jkKqDJP5YovHwTREgi5A/Kufa8MCmf1fYshgzmkW8rcwbwbUGG cA50NS4LMh1fAjBj8+an5mvZtnUr7sWKnpGLmZrEoNbbYUlIhHCsmb1/ocsU7B6gkaa0 9n+KyJBdOhWkJafsty9yvNJuGS9jwFoxpBxL4U7XIgdkrIbeQTKUkE8HPMl1SmsovLak E9Q9qVTZlDp97OYpe60QrdcLvOQlY/zZU1+ndKyoe7ehcfCmExjAIU9zl/FHOh5Ilke/ zT1EeYysiEqoG+aP5bjv2iYjeirK/Nn7wfjEibAr+DBttKZ8L7rpun7S8PWpD04jbIhU cFvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gru+PuvCk1tROxQT9PpVOf7HHpKmAvCW2XCknjgNLIW36Vob3D 9M/aOdpMxLfTRhRh3SphnZOFOlU6FQ== X-Received: by 10.200.4.4 with SMTP id v4mr11535917qtg.23.1502295940166; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.1.194 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:25:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <32B88620-D166-4078-8721-8EFCB818E1FE@pobox.com> References: <54CA5E71-F469-4FD9-AF29-21985B454CAE@gmail.com> <32B88620-D166-4078-8721-8EFCB818E1FE@pobox.com> From: Herbert Van de Sompel Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 18:25:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type To: Ed Summers Cc: link-relations , Peter Williams , Geoffrey Bilder , Michael Nelson , Simeon Warner , "John A. Kunze" , Herbert Van de Sompel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f40304378c24dc7b6f055654878c" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:25:44 -0000 --f40304378c24dc7b6f055654878c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Ed Summers wrote: > Hi Herbert, > > > On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Herbert Van de Sompel > wrote: > > > > * On August 5, Ed Summers posted a question regarding applying > "bookmark" to 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 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 . 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 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 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 == --f40304378c24dc7b6f055654878c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
Hi Herbert,

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> * On August 5, Ed Summers posted a question regarding applying "b= ookmark" to <link> to the WHATWG list, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pub= lic-whatwg-archive/2017Aug/0001.html. There are no responses to th= is post, so far.

There have been a few responses if you look at the list of emails fo= r August:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://lists.w3.or= g/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2017Aug/

> * On August 9, Ed Summer posted a similar question to WHATWG/HTML GitH= ub, see https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2899. There is a reaction from @annevk who (1) speculates that the reason &quo= t;bookmark" is not to be used with <link> might be in order not = to overlap with "canonical" (2) suggests the use of "canonic= al" :-)

Yes, canonical seems to be the relation that most people are reachin= g for initially. I did myself on reading your I-D. The fact that seasoned h= ands like Kevin Marks and Anne van Kesteren are as well says something.

> * Michael Nelson has further explored "bookmark" and has con= firmed that there effectively is a reason for not allowing "bookmark&q= uot; in <link>. It is related to its target use case: surfacing a lin= k for content contained in a *part* of a page. Hence, Michael concludes tha= t making "bookmark" usable with <link> will most likely not= happen. @annevk's GitHub response does not seem to contradict that. Mi= chael based his findings on studying http://tantek.= com/log/2002/11.html#L20021128t1352 and https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#lin= k-type-bookmark. He may write another blog post about this, but, f= or 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 Ann= e indicated it's likely that rel=3Dbookmark cannot be used with <lin= k> because of perceived confusion it would cause with canonical. The sem= antics of parts of pages vs the page itself don't seem terribly signifi= cant to me from an implementation perspective. Unfortunately 'identifie= r' will also probably cause some confusion as well. As systems that rel= y 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
=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> //Ed



-= -
Her= bert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Ala= mos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
http://orc= id.org/0000-0002-0715-6126

=3D=3D
--f40304378c24dc7b6f055654878c--