 |
 |
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Brett Bonfield > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:35 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Anyone else watching rev=canonical? > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > 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. > > 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. Andy.