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