[link-relations] rel="canonical"
Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 22:22 UTC
Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCE2E06CE for <link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vrt++oNam7Ec for <link-relations@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E753DE0692 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so1608704pvh.31 for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=6BidtDnxwJx1IoUawSLO3hJ+52uYPoJg3/nWcE6TjNU=; b=ebEC4xwKSd0jraYMxe3d3DWaVk+4ww1nzdKih64sU2AjpSHGHy0JAwqsZc+3HJTZks rZoXu4A/UjlXt3fS4p6E1wmCvxb/6zw0nQtLH5PY983Zh/MSBoBAHpNcoP4H7KGXMzoL Z3E1Ry0jl/tkcNe7tgxvU9y7tczLSZjj5t++g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=x8B8LK90VcDzGe75bh585diCVfC1r1tKo9u7RyRo50StkZIazsT3eInWK4sRmdQ+b0 diu/3BsrkTJF9TLIeCFkj+/DVbzJf6h7Qo6Pvkc6HvmUzH/B/S/JUKVPJVLRI0NyUK/7 GFMTdRfR/fUYYFvFGJVbty1Ru9txuGoZkyjp8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.177.6 with SMTP id e6mr1102718wfp.223.1302906145099; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.89.5 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:22:25 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=t+=bYXSGyGKwGzW+yyiCOEsHePg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
To: link-relations <link-relations@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [link-relations] rel="canonical"
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:22:27 -0000
Hi, I've found the list archive, and Peter told the IETF secretary that this list can be added to http://www.ietf.org/list/nonwg.html Please s/similar similar/similar/ in my registration request. That is in essence a dupe, you already got a similar registration request some weeks ago from Ed Summers. Sorry, I didn't know that, just pick what you like better. I agree with Julian that this is a case for... 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. As specification the original (vintage 2009-02-19) blog entry at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html is not better than the "webmaster help" page (updated 2011-03-20). Apparently I-D.johnston-addressing-link-relations-01 is expired, so that doesn't help at the moment. It also discussed other relations. In February Julian wrote: > a document at google.com should work if the URI looks stable. The "Google webmaster tools" exist for some years, but that is of course no guarantee for their 'About rel="canonical"' help page. You could BE BOLD and copy the content to the microformats wiki, they already host a rel="nofollow" text (apparently waiting for a better specification since 2005). IMO rel="canonical" doesn't really need an RFC - it is a rather dubious name and very near to rel="bookmark" or rel="self", but nevertheless it needs to be registered. - Frank
- [link-relations] rel="canonical" Frank Ellermann