 |
 |
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Brett Bonfield > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:48 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Anyone else watching rev=canonical? > > 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. Agreed. Another issue with rev=canonical is that I don't believe that rev= is going to be supported in HTML 5. Andy.