Wait, is this the same or different than <link rel="canonical">, as in:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html

<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.

Jonathan

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)
> http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners.html
>
> A summary of the work on rev=canonical, with good links and also a new
> bookmarklet
> http://simonwillison.net/2009/Apr/11/revcanonical/
>
> An interesting post that makes the case for rev=canonical
> http://adactio.com/journal/1568
>
> An interesting post that makes the case against rev=canonical
> http://www.mnot.net/blog/2009/04/14/rev_canonical_bad
>
> "I (used to) like rev=canonical”
> http://decafbad.com/blog/2009/04/13/i-like-revcanonical
>
> An interesting assessment of the issues involved
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/14/Canonical-Reverse-Or-Wisdom-Defying-Shorturl
>
> I'm not sure what happens now, but I hope the conversation results
> quickly in as much software as is needed.
>
> Brett
>
> Brett Bonfield
> Director
> Collingswood Public Library
> [log in to unmask]
> 856.858.0649
>