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

However, just to be clear, rev=canonical != rel=canonical.

They are discrete responses to distinct issues.