[wp-hackers] Canonical integration into core
mikeschinkel at newclarity.net
Tue Feb 17 00:24:28 GMT 2009
"Nathan Rice" <ncrice at gmail.com> wrote:
> In reality, this is an SEO function, which should be up to the
> theme to implement, not a plugin OR core functionality. It's
It's not frivolous nor is it just for SEO. It is a useful component of website architecture and having it in core means you can depend on it being there rather than just on the 3% of sites where the author decides to install the plugin. One example of a type of site that could make good use of this would be Delicious. Basically anything that collects and stores links can use this, not just search engines.
> How about just letting the user define what they want in their
> theme source?
The user? Or the themer? Or the plugin developer? Most users wouldn't know the benefit of it so will never consider it.
I understand that there may be edge cases where a themer might not want to not have it included but the solution is to explicitly include it in the default theme(s) using a "the_canonical_url()" template tag that the themer can remove, and some infrastructure to support the template tag; basically filters that would let a plugin change it from the default if there was a need for that.
So this isn't *just* a theming or SEO issue; this is a content management issue because the user might want to specify it themselves via the CMS although I'd agree that would be something a plugin could offer.
"Daniel Torreblanca" <regulatethis at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm getting so tired of these "omg put this/don't put
> this in core" arguments ... then anyone arguing based
> on "we can't cause bloat/not enough people will use
> it" is basically blowing hot air.
> Not one single person that I've ever asked about it
> has said that they use it or even know what it is.
You didn't ask me, but FWIW I use Windows Live Writer and thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread. Seriously. :-)
> So, while I believe support for this new canonical
> URL tag SHOULD be included in core, Joost has already
> done it in a plugin. Anyone who knows what they're
> doing would find this functionality whether it was
> in core or in a plugin, and for the vast majority
> of people it will make no difference whatsoever.
This argument I disagree with. One of the benefits of canonical URLs is that it cleans up one of the messy parts of the web at large. With all the affiliate links and ad sourcing links et.al. you have all these duplicate links and it was hard to get an automated handle on the web at large. The more sites that specify canonical links, the less this is a problem. Because of it's massive footprint WordPress could make a real positive difference by simply including canonical links in core.
So I'll ask from another perspective; what's the harm in doing something good for the web when what is requires would be so small and simple to add? Does anyone really feel like this will bloat the core? Srsly? And for those saying they will have to filter it out, what's you have now is no better so what have you lost?
More information about the wp-hackers