Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Ed Summers]

> 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 in following along there.

//Ed

[1] https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2899

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Ed Summers]

> 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 - 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.

Oh boy, that is going back a ways yes :) I see some of that documentation still 
refers to HTML 4! 

I guess I'll put a contribution together that adjusts rel="bookmark" and see 
how it fares. Thanks for the feedback everyone.

//Ed

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Kevin Marks]

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.
>
> 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"  wrote:
>
>> 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 canonical:
>>
>> http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2017/08/2017-08-07-relcanonical-
>> does-not-mean.html
>>
>> I think I'm convinced that canonical isn't the right fit for what they
>> are talking about. But if rel=bookmark could be used in  elements I
>> think it would work better than a slightly similar, oddly named, link
>> relation, which IMHO is bound to cause confusion for web publishers.
>>
>> //Ed
>
>

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Kevin Marks]

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"  wrote:

> 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 canonical:
>
> http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2017/08/2017-08-07-
> relcanonical-does-not-mean.html
>
> I think I'm convinced that canonical isn't the right fit for what they are
> talking about. But if rel=bookmark could be used in  elements I think
> it would work better than a slightly similar, oddly named, link relation,
> which IMHO is bound to cause confusion for web publishers.
>
> //Ed

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Ed Summers]

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 canonical:

http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2017/08/2017-08-07-relcanonical-does-not-mean.html

I think I'm convinced that canonical isn't the right fit for what they are 
talking about. But if rel=bookmark could be used in  elements I think it 
would work better than a slightly similar, oddly named, link relation, which 
IMHO is bound to cause confusion for web publishers.

//Ed

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Ed Summers]

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 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  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  would change the 
meaning because of the clause "... or of the section of the linking element is 
most closely associated with". If the  were used in the  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.

//Ed

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

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Ed Summers]

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, 
although  canonical was the relation I first thought of too.

As the IETF draft authors describe in a related blog post [1] canonical was 
dropped from consideration because it exists to "identify content that is 
either duplicative or a superset of the content at the context (referring) IRI" 
and does not speak to the durability of the link.

//Ed

[1] http://ws-dl.blogspot.com/2016/11/2016-11-07-linking-to-persistent.html

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Philipp Serafin]

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"  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].
> >
> > The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list
> > [2] where a new link relation has been proposed to encourage persistent
> > linking [3]. 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  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
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark
> > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/
> > current/msg00670.html
> > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/
>

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Kevin Marks]

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].
>
> The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list
> [2] where a new link relation has been proposed to encourage persistent
> linking [3]. 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  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
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/
> current/msg00670.html
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

[Domenic Denicola]

Hi Ed,

(Remember to use the HTML Standard, located at 
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/links.html#link-type-bookmark, not any 
forks of it.)

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  element, but that's not usually how we share link 
relations between the different elements: cf. alternate, author, help, license, 
next, etc.

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".

-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 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 proposed to encourage persistent linking 
[3]. 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  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

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00670.html
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/