Hi Domenic,

> On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> 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 my question is 
still relevant?

> Right now the bookmark link relation has a specific purpose, as you can read 
> in the spec:
>> The bookmark keyword gives a permalink for the nearest ancestor article 
>> element of the linking element in question, or of the section the linking 
>> element is most closely associated with, if there are no ancestor article 
>> elements.
> Your proposal is essentially to give it an entirely separate meaning when 
> used in the context of the <link> element, but that's not usually how we 
> share link relations between the different elements: cf. alternate, author, 
> help, license, next, etc.

I don't think allowing rel=bookmark to be used with <link> would change the 
meaning because of the clause "... or of the section of the linking element is 
most closely associated with". If the <link> were used in the <head> of an HTML 
document then the bookmark would be associated with the HTML document itself, 
not some section within it.

> At least, that is how I understand; I'm having a hard time distinguishing 
> what "identifier" is for in practice, and in particular why it is different 
> than "canonical".

Yes, I initially thought canonical was the logical choice too. But as the draft 
authors point out, canonical [1] says nothing about persistence and is used 
instead to indicate a preferred URL for duplicative content.


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6596

Reply via email to