IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7652821F878C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PJrx16JULO4D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2ED21F878A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so2124270pzk.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OhM41p6Mc2QeaoeCSwSlNrJUU+GAMInx5k+apXxDwRU=; b=kq85uwh/DBysSlifIWbmVa4i5GdE3ptdtdSxLSGSpayMAAbq/25MEvaotSPrJ/F7Dh Ca1+C3AbharpuyhJHAHqft80cynR+Pnes5kAmD6g7lGy45y5csq0r4K6KoqWpvIIr9Vm pqqGoseKefn37TBE4BnrSm9BzUxtDgxubvpEI=
Received: by 10.142.44.16 with SMTP id r16mr849394wfr.406.1309422277357; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.89.6 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de>
References: <4E083D3F.6030200@gmx.de>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:24:17 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinwWigPzX7rsVWber-mz+LKgKPFHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: maileohye@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [link-relations] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:24:38 -0000

>        Title           : The Canonical Link Relation
>        Author(s)       : Maile Ohye
>        Filename        : draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-00.txt

A relative canonical URL can't be a good idea.  If there is more than
one "content URL" (in the terminology of the draft) this would result
in more than one canonical URL, defeat the purpose, and worse, this
could make googlebot angry.

The draft could s/SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT/, I don't see any good reason
to violate a SHOULD NOT, and if that's correct MUST NOT is clearer.

-Frank

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email