Respec should allow the inclusion of a canonical URL

[marcoscaceres]

Basically, something like:

<link rel="canonical" href="http://picture.responsiveimages.org">

Use case: to tell Google not to treat WDs on TR as canonical and instead see the Editor's drafts as canonical.

[darobin]

So, it's not that I'm against this, but what's the value in having to write:

{
    canonicalURL:  "http://picture.responsiveimages.org"
}

Which would have to look for an existing <link> and update it or generate one, instead of just:

<link rel="canonical" href="http://picture.responsiveimages.org">

?

[marcoscaceres]

Pretty much. We prolly don't need this once the W3C starts publishing editor's drafts on TR tho. It wouldn't hurt to have, just in case.

[halindrome]

I agree. Wouldn't hurt to have.
On Dec 23, 2014 7:57 PM, "Marcos Caceres" notifications@github.com wrote:

Pretty much. We prolly don't need this once the W3C starts publishing
editor's drafts on TR tho. It wouldn't hurt to have, just in case.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#317 (comment).

[marcoscaceres]

So... thinking about this some more, we should maybe have a rule that if an option directly transforms to a HTML tag, then the tag is preferred over the option. This would rule out things like canonical as something in the config.

Let's close this one.

[darobin]

Yeah, markup is easier to handle than configuration since it works the same everywhere and you're likely to know how to do it even if you only heard about ReSpec five minutes ago. The configuration language is slowly turning into Sendmail, it could use a hand.

There are cases in which configuration is better than markup, but the markup has to be pretty complicated.