Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-06-06 01:59, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>> Julian posted earlier on this list that it would be
>> nice to have a spec, but I leave it up to the DEs
>> whether a link to a blog post is acceptable, i.e.:
>
>> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
>
> Indeed, it would be nice to have a proper specification.
>
> But it would be also nice to get a clear decision for a
> registration request posted in April based on the Google
> webmaster help article as ersatz-spec -- IMO slightly
> better than an expired I-D or old blog entry.
>
> Frank

Ok.

It doesn't seem that we'll see a "proper" spec any time soon, so let's 
go ahead with registering what's there.

Frank: is the template you posted in April 
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00185.html>)...

> Relation Name: canonical
> Description:   A "canonical" URI is the preferred version of a set of URIs
>                with highly similar content.  It is intended to help search
>                engines when the same or highly similar similar content is
>                available at different URIs.
> Reference:     About rel="canonical"
>                http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=139394
> Notes:         In <http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/canonical-link-tag/> and
>                <http://gregable.com/2009/02/relcanonical.html> the authors
>                state that Ask, Bing, Google, and Yahoo supported canonical
>                URIs as of February, 2009.

...what we should use?

The URI seems to be less stable than

 
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html

but appears to have more relevant content...

Best regards, Julian