W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: google supports rel="canonical" (ISSUE-27 rel-ownership)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:54:38 -0500
Message-ID: <499B5C4E.80603@intertwingly.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> I just discovered this:
> 
> [[
> Now, you can simply add this <link> tag to specify your preferred
> version: 
> 
> <link rel="canonical"
> href="http://www.example.com/product.php?item=swedish-fish" />
> ]]
>  --
> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
> 
> seems relevant to one of our issues...
> ISSUE-27 rel-ownership @rel value ownership, registry consideration
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27
> 
> I see Anne found this a few days ago...
> http://annevankesteren.nl/2009/02/rel-canonical

Also relevant:

http://blog.unto.net/web/a-survey-of-rel-values-on-the-web/

If you compare Dewitt's list against the HTML5 spec and the wiki page 
you will find a number of very common rel types that aren't registered.

Unfortunately, the conclusions I draw from this aren't very encouraging. 
  We've discussed at length how making certain attributes mandatory 
often does not have the desired effect on authoring behavior, at least 
in the domain of HTML.  Alas, it appears that the situation is pretty 
much the same for enumerated lists of attribute values, and on attribute 
values in general.  Google, Microsoft, and Palm at least are going to do 
what they are going to do:

http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/02/palm_webos_approach_to_html_ex.html

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 00:55:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:31 GMT