Wait, is this the same or different than <link rel="canonical">, as in:
<link rel="canonical"> seemed like a good idea to me. But when I start
reading some of those URLs, it's not clear to me if they're talking
about the same thing or not.
Brett Bonfield wrote:
> Summary: URL shortening services, such as TinyURL, are a problem. The
> folks who have proposed rev=canonical have written some useful
> software around it, but rev=canonical has some potentially
> insurmountable issues.
> I suggest the following posts if you find this at all interesting:
> The post that drew attention to URL shorteners (by the creator of del.icio.us)
> A summary of the work on rev=canonical, with good links and also a new
> An interesting post that makes the case for rev=canonical
> An interesting post that makes the case against rev=canonical
> "I (used to) like rev=canonical”
> An interesting assessment of the issues involved
> I'm not sure what happens now, but I hope the conversation results
> quickly in as much software as is needed.
> Brett Bonfield
> Collingswood Public Library
> [log in to unmask]