 |
 |
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Houghton,Andrew <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Brett Bonfield >> >> Different. Which is one of the problems with rev=canonical. > > Another issue is that Google, Microsoft, et al. couldn't see that their > 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 strategy > only works in HTML, it doesn't work in RDF, JSON, XML, etc., but using > 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 providing. However, just to be clear, rev=canonical != rel=canonical. They are discrete responses to distinct issues. Brett