Wait, is this the same or different than <link rel="canonical">, as in:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
<link rel="canonical"> seemed like a good idea to me. But when I start
reading some of those URLs, it's not clear to me if they're talking
about the same thing or not.
Jonathan
Brett Bonfield wrote:
Summary: URL shortening services, such as TinyURL, are a problem. The
folks who have proposed rev=canonical have written some useful
software around it, but rev=canonical has some potentially
insurmountable issues.
I suggest the following posts if you find this at all interesting:
The post that drew attention to URL shorteners (by the creator of del.icio.us)
http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners.html
A summary of the work on rev=canonical, with good links and also a new
bookmarklet
http://simonwillison.net/2009/Apr/11/revcanonical/
An interesting post that makes the case for rev=canonical
http://adactio.com/journal/1568
An interesting post that makes the case against rev=canonical
http://www.mnot.net/blog/2009/04/14/rev_canonical_bad
"I (used to) like rev=canonical”
http://decafbad.com/blog/2009/04/13/i-like-revcanonical
An interesting assessment of the issues involved
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/14/Canonical-Reverse-Or-Wisdom-Defying-Shorturl
I'm not sure what happens now, but I hope the conversation results
quickly in as much software as is needed.
Brett
Brett Bonfield
Director
Collingswood Public Library
bonfi...@collingswoodlib.org
856.858.0649
