- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:36:17 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, James Ide wrote: > > Currently rel="canonical" ( > http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html) > is not in the allowed set of link types listed at > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#linkTypes . Looking > back through archived posts, it seems that it was once briefly mentioned > in passing but there was no discussion regarding its addition to the > spec. Considering its usefulness, are there plans to add "canonical" to > the official list of accepted values? On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > I'd support this. There are many cases with web apps when you want to > present slightly different versions of the same content, where the > differences are convenient to regular users but immaterial to first-time > users, such that search engines should treat them interchangeably or > present a single canonical version to new visitors rather than treating > them as separate pages. In principle you might think search engines > could figure this out themselves heuristically, but the three biggest > have apparently decided they could use some help, so it seems like a > valuable feature. > > Of course, the way the new value was developed and introduced was > certainly not ideal. But the same is true for a lot of the things that > go into the HTML 5 spec. On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Bil Corry wrote: > > It's is currently listed on the RelExtensions wiki page as referenced by > the HTML5 draft: > > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions What Bil said. To go further, it will need a formal spec. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 14:36:17 UTC