Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST: canonical

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 15.11.2010 12:18, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Julian Reschke<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>> <http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html>
>>
>> is a better reference?
>
> Thanks Julian, I like that reference better. I'm definitely not doing
> this on behalf of Google, I just thought I would suggest it for the
> registry since it is being used. The discussion about 'duplicate'
> reminded me of it :-)

OK,

(writing just for me, not the other DEs)

I have tried to get in contact with Google with respect to this, and 
have failed.

I see the following options (just mentioning them all).

a) do not register
b) register as proposed
c) register, but create a standalone spec defining it

Let's consult the spec, see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.1>:

    Note that relation types can be registered by third parties, if the
    Designated Expert determines that an unregistered relation type is
    widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner.

This appears to be the case here.

At this point, I'd suggest option c): write a small spec we can publish 
as RFC, and give Google another opportunity to give feedback when it 
goes through the process (for instance as a Informational RFC, maybe as 
direct RFC Editor submission).

Ed -- would you be interested in either authoring or co-authoring that 
spec? (I'll help with the formatting mechanics).

Feedback appreciated,

Julian