- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 23:31:57 +0100
- To: <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On 7 Nov 2014 at 20:01, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: > Roger Hågensen <rescator@emsai.net> writes: > >> A link element in the header, maybe call it <link rel="share" >> href="http://example.com/article/12345/" /> >> or <link rel="share" /> if the current url (or the canonical url link if >> present) should be used, although I guess in a way rel="share" will >> probably replace the need to use rel="canonical" in the long run. > > I do not understand. Why should one invent a rel value (“share”) that > conveys the same semantics as an already existing one (“canonical”) ? I also have to admit that I struggle to see what value adding a rel="share" link to a page adds!? If you look at how people share links (they copy and paste what's shown in the browser's address bar) then I wonder why anything at all is needed on the page to be shared... The story is obviously different for Share Web APIs or share endpoints as they are called in https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Sharing/API (Facebook, Reddit, bitly etc.). The most interesting question however is why (desktop) browsers haven't added a share button till now.. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 22:32:23 UTC