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" <kevinma...@gmail.com>: > That use case sounds more like rel="canonical" > > On 6 Aug 2017 2:07 am, "Ed Summers" <e...@pobox.com> 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 <link> element . > > > > The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list > >  where a new link relation has been proposed to encourage persistent > > linking . The proposed 'identifier' relation seems to closely resemble > > the idea of a permalink (a persistent link) that can be found in the > > definition of bookmark. If bookmark allowed use with the <link> element > > then I think there would be less of a demonstrated need for the new > > 'identifier' link relation. > > > > Thanks for any information you can provide. I apologize if I'm restarting > > a conversation that has already happened. > > > > //Ed > > > >  https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark > >  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/ > > current/msg00670.html > >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/ >