- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 10:06:35 -0400
- To: Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
Hi Phil, > On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com> wrote: > > As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement > for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future? Yes, the quality of persistence is why I thought rel=bookmark worked best, although canonical was the relation I first thought of too. As the IETF draft authors describe in a related blog post [1] canonical was dropped from consideration because it exists to "identify content that is either duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) IRI" and does not speak to the durability of the link. //Ed [1] http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2016/11/2016-11-07-linking-to-persistent.html
Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 14:07:03 UTC