Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type

Ed Summers <> Wed, 09 August 2017 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9661323D4 for <>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nqRhKr8uGHdg for <>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC6CA13240E for <>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1B7ACD52; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=sasl; bh= SPqB28WEEa8aJK0AGDu6vbQvkYY=; b=V4U2jGw3qWl7Aa2EDkyv/HnkRwdyMMJs whQvIWDKezfBbLmQtrBnrbsHwqbs4KlBaFEMeVNm9YO4mNpWrjv438sC4cihG1S6 j27TcFHOm3OgiDi+2cFTiINj8JVWzxVn5mw+VkQezN3D4IsZQsLI4vsyszMn4FvA akJyVv3E2Rc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; q=dns; s= sasl; b=GHyAKqzycaUk+YEhvndOBdCsZ61Qgn0K/XNfBecP5DKIaFmEF58m1xs8 507FrMboUq3N56B5oCW5EUF/2bd+BUoPEVbWTiGMiu9jEPgpIvdof5bHDvdVNNyl +yU3hCJGIeqEzemLUk2vk9qDwpzEAqq8mzK8EsDWFQ3l18OuIXs=
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74FEACD50; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 597DAACD4D; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Request to register "identifier" relation type
From: Ed Summers <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:17:55 -0400
Cc: link-relations <>, Peter Williams <>, Geoffrey Bilder <>, Michael Nelson <>, Simeon Warner <>, "John A. Kunze" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Herbert Van de Sompel <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4DB91E42-7D1E-11E7-A261-9D2B0D78B957-07615111!
Archived-At: <>
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 16:18:02 -0000

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 <link> to the WHATWG list, see 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:

> * On August 9, Ed Summer posted a similar question to WHATWG/HTML GitHub, see 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 and He may write another blog post about this, but, for now, here's how he explained on Twitter

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.