Counting the ways that rev="canonical" hurts the Web. Mark Nottingham complains about misapplied trust (a page can falsely claim to be the canonical URL for another page), the easy confusion between rev and rel and the lack of discussion with relevant communities.
Sign in with 
OpenID
So what is your take on that?
Still on the fence. I'm not personally that bothered what colour the bikeshed ends up being painted - I initially preferred rev=canonical mainly because it's nice and snappy (and makes a good tag) but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Mark's arguments are solid - I'm waiting for a rebuttal or two from the rev=canonical camp before I even think about making up my mind.
Mark complains that it "launched as a Web site, a blog, and a Slashdot article, but AFAICT zero discussion within the communities that care about this" - the website and blog and associated coverage constitutes discussion. If the W3C and IETF want to talk about it, I'm sure that conversation will happen in due time. In the meantime, a constituency for the new feature is identifying itself and performing the necessary experiments that prove whether the idea sucks or rules.
He may be right about the misuse of "canonical", I suspect that "alternate short(er)" is going to carry the day.
Michal Migurski - 14th April 2009 17:01 - #
I'd suggest rel="shortURL" for this link instead. The redirect from the shortURL should establish the canonical relationship.
David Robarts - 15th April 2009 01:09 - #