Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION - canonical

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

On 2 June 2011 00:27, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>> I did answer in
>>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00186.html>,
>>> right?

Sorry, I sent a reply only as PM back in April, just in
case repeated here:

|> we do have people at Google looking into writing a
|> "proper" spec
|
| Just in case I posted a pointer in the "webmaster help" | forum (*).
|
|> maybe you are willing to assist them, given your IETF |>know-how?
|
| But you don't want the rel="canonical" registration
| in 2016... ;-)  If somebody writes an RFC its IANA
| considerations could update a registration.  You're
| not forced to wait for that; above all don't hold
| your breath.

IOW, I think the relation should be registered now, and
I'm waiting for a "reject" or "accept" decision (seven
weeks now).  The appeal sent to the APPS-AD address
apparently didn't make it, that could be a problem with
the forwarding on the tools server.

[Björn wrote:]
>> I am mostly wondering why anyone would have thought
>> it a good idea to make this promise in the
>> specification. Any thoughts on that?

A review timeout is a good idea, the language tags list
has a similar rule.  Years ago on the charsets list
without clear timeout it took months until folks were
sure that the expert did not more read the list.

-Frank