W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2017

Re: rel=canonical in specs

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:43:09 +0100
Message-Id: <1485434589.392000.860254904.16A33752@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: spec-prod@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017, at 11:54, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> A few months ago, I brought a patch to respec to make it document as a
> link rel=canonical [1] the latest version of a given document:
>   https://github.com/w3c/respec/pull/938
> (with the goal of having search engines return the "preferred" version
> of a given spec)

Thanks for doing this. It's an important step forward.
 
> The respec patch makes it configurable what URI to use as a latest
> version, with a default to TR/foo - default that might need to be
> revisited in light of Denis' proposals [2].

Indeed.
 
> I'm looking for feedback on whether to push that approach more broadly,
> which would entail first to add such a mechanism to other editing tools
> (I would in particular be happy to look at providing a patch for
> bikeshed), and maybe longer term make this part of the pubrules
> requirements.

+1 to both.
 
> I have also separately started investigating how we could annotate our
> huge set of existing TR documents with a rel=canonical - but it's likely
> that if we come up with a system to do so, it would be more cost
> effective for future documents to document it themselves.

I'm still not convinced this wouldn't be better (and more consistently)
handled at the HTTP header layer for new specs, providing there's
agreement wrt to the discussion in [2].

Best,

--tobie

---
[2]: https://w3c.github.io/tr-links/versioning/
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 12:43:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:22 UTC