> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Brett Bonfield
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:48 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Anyone else watching rev=canonical?
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Houghton,Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
> >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >> Brett Bonfield
> >> Different. Which is one of the problems with rev=canonical.
> > Another issue is that Google, Microsoft, et al. couldn't see that
> > proposal was already taken care of by HTTP with its Content-Location
> > header and that if they wanted people to embed the canonical URI into
> > their HTML that they could have easily done:
> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Location" content="canonical-URI" />
> > rather than creating a new link rel="canonical" and BTW their
> > only works in HTML, it doesn't work in RDF, JSON, XML, etc., but
> > HTTP as it was intended, e.g., Content-Location header, it works for
> > all media types.
> Similar issues are arising with the proposed rev=canonical. That is,
> there are different ways to provide the info that rev=canonical is
> However, just to be clear, rev=canonical != rel=canonical.
> They are discrete responses to distinct issues.
Agreed. Another issue with rev=canonical is that I don't believe that
rev= is going to be supported in HTML 5.