Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 3:43 PM, Ed Summers wrote: > > I guess I'll put a contribution together that adjusts rel="bookmark" and see > how it fares. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I started with an issue ticket [1] that references this conversation in case anyone is interested

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Marks wrote: > > See also http://microformats.org/wiki/sharelink-formats for a (recent) > related use case > > On 8 Aug 2017 7:01 pm, "Kevin Marks" wrote: > >> This sounds like what we use uid for in microformats

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

See also http://microformats.org/wiki/sharelink-formats for a (recent) related use case On 8 Aug 2017 7:01 pm, "Kevin Marks" wrote: > This sounds like what we use uid for in microformats - the url that you > want as the persistent identifier. > >

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

This sounds like what we use uid for in microformats - the url that you want as the persistent identifier. http://microformats.org/wiki/uid - it looks like you wrote this up a while back, Ed. See u-uid in h-entry http://microformats.org/wiki/h-entry On 8 Aug 2017 5:58 pm, "Ed Summers"

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi Kevin, > On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Kevin Marks wrote: > > That use case sounds more like rel="canonical" You weren't the only one (myself included) who thought that. Michael Nelson, one of the authors if the identifier I-D, just wrote a blog post explaining why not

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi Domenic, > On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > (Remember to use the HTML Standard, located at > https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-bookmark, not any > forks of it.) Oops, my bad! Luckily the definition looks the same so I think

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi Phil, > On Aug 6, 2017, at 6:13 AM, Philipp Serafin wrote: > > As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement > for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future? Yes, the quality of persistence is why I thought rel=bookmark worked best,

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future? Am 06.08.2017 3:20 vorm. schrieb "Kevin Marks" : > That use case sounds more like rel="canonical" > > On 6 Aug 2017 2:07 am, "Ed Summers"

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

That use case sounds more like rel="canonical" On 6 Aug 2017 2:07 am, "Ed Summers" wrote: > Hi all, > > I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a pointer to > previous discussion, about why the bookmark link relation can't be used > with the element [1]. > >

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

erent than "canonical". -Original Message- From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Ed Summers Sent: Saturday, August 5, 2017 21:07 To: wha...@whatwg.org Subject: [whatwg] rel=bookmark Hi all, I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a

[whatwg] rel=bookmark

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a pointer to previous discussion, about why the bookmark link relation can't be used with the element [1]. The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list [2] where a new link relation has been