Comments on: URI canonicalization with an X-Canonical-URI HTTP header http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/ If you've read my articles somewhere on the Internet, expect something different here. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:39:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: HTTP Headers supporting the Canonical Tag - watch out! - State of Search http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2900 HTTP Headers supporting the Canonical Tag - watch out! - State of Search Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:53:39 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2900 [...] after introducing the tag in 2009 there was some feedback (including this one) saying that it would have been a better idea to also allow HTTP headers as a way of implementing [...] […] after introducing the tag in 2009 there was some feedback (including this one) saying that it would have been a better idea to also allow HTTP headers as a way of implementing […]

]]> By: Rel = Canonical negli header HTTP, ora è disponibile | Andrea Vit http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2896 Rel = Canonical negli header HTTP, ora è disponibile | Andrea Vit Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:50:42 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2896 [...] richiesta di questa funzionalità era stata in qualche modo palesata dal buon Sebastian Pamphlets nel suo blog nel lontano dicembre del 2009, dove chiedeva a Google una funzionalità simile come [...] […] richiesta di questa funzionalità era stata in qualche modo palesata dal buon Sebastian Pamphlets nel suo blog nel lontano dicembre del 2009, dove chiedeva a Google una funzionalità simile come […]

]]> By: Doc Sheldon http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2895 Doc Sheldon Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:24:13 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2895 Maybe the squeaky wheel really DOES get the oil, eh, Sebastian? Anyhow... Merry Christmas early... or late... whatever! At least they did it! Maybe the squeaky wheel really DOES get the oil, eh, Sebastian?

Anyhow… Merry Christmas early… or late… whatever! At least they did it!

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2894 Sebastian Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:07:35 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2894 <h3><a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/06/supporting-relcanonical-http-headers.html">SUCCESS</a></h3> <p><b>Google Web Search supporting rel="canonical" HTTP Headers</b> Friday, June 17, 2011 at 1:05 AM Webmaster level: Advanced Posted by Pierre Far, Webmaster Trends Analyst on the Google Webmaster Blog</p> <p>Based on your feedback, we’re happy to announce that Google web search now supports link rel="canonical" relationships specified in HTTP headers as per the syntax described in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-5">section 5 of IETF RFC 5988</a>.</p> <p>Webmasters can use rel="canonical" HTTP headers to signal the canonical URL for both HTML documents and other types of content such as PDF files. To see the rel="canonical" HTTP header in action, let’s look at the scenario of a website offering a white paper both as an HTML page and as a downloadable PDF alternative, under these two URLs:</p> <p><code>http://www.example.com/white-paper.html</code></p> <p><code>http://www.example.com/white-paper.pdf</code></p> <p>In this case, the webmaster can signal to Google that the canonical URL for the PDF download is the HTML document by using a rel="canonical" HTTP header when the PDF file is requested; for example:</p> <h3>Request Header</h3> <p><code>GET /white-paper.pdf HTTP/1.1</code></p> <p><code>Host: www.example.com</code></p> <p><code>(...rest of HTTP request headers...)</code></p> <h3>Response Header</h3> <p><code>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</code></p> <p><code>Content-Type: application/pdf</code></p> <p><code>Link: <http://www.example.com/white-paper.html>; rel="canonical"</code></p> <p><code>Content-Length: 785710</code></p> <p><code>(... rest of HTTP response headers...)</code></p> <p>Another common situation in which rel="canonical" HTTP headers may help is when a website serves the same file from multiple URLs (for example when using a content distribution network) and the webmaster wishes to signal to Google the preferred URL.</p> <p>We currently support these link header elements for web search only. As we see how webmasters are using these elements, we're hoping to add support for them in our other properties. For more information, please see our Help Center articles about canonicalization and the rel="canonical" element. If you have any questions, please ask in our Webmaster Help Forum.</p> <strong><br />Thank You!</strong> SUCCESS

Google Web Search supporting rel=”canonical” HTTP Headers
Friday, June 17, 2011 at 1:05 AM
Webmaster level: Advanced
Posted by Pierre Far, Webmaster Trends Analyst on the Google Webmaster Blog

Based on your feedback, we’re happy to announce that Google web search now supports link rel=”canonical” relationships specified in HTTP headers as per the syntax described in section 5 of IETF RFC 5988.

Webmasters can use rel=”canonical” HTTP headers to signal the canonical URL for both HTML documents and other types of content such as PDF files.
To see the rel=”canonical” HTTP header in action, let’s look at the scenario of a website offering a white paper both as an HTML page and as a downloadable PDF alternative, under these two URLs:

http://www.example.com/white-paper.html

http://www.example.com/white-paper.pdf

In this case, the webmaster can signal to Google that the canonical URL for the PDF download is the HTML document by using a rel=”canonical” HTTP header when the PDF file is requested; for example:

Request Header

GET /white-paper.pdf HTTP/1.1

Host: www.example.com

(...rest of HTTP request headers...)

Response Header

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

Content-Type: application/pdf

Link: <http://www.example.com/white-paper.html>; rel="canonical"

Content-Length: 785710

(... rest of HTTP response headers...)

Another common situation in which rel=”canonical” HTTP headers may help is when a website serves the same file from multiple URLs (for example when using a content distribution network) and the webmaster wishes to signal to Google the preferred URL.

We currently support these link header elements for web search only. As we see how webmasters are using these elements, we’re hoping to add support for them in our other properties. For more information, please see our Help Center articles about canonicalization and the rel=”canonical” element. If you have any questions, please ask in our Webmaster Help Forum.


Thank You!

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2520 Sebastian Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:24:44 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2520 <p>Another candidate: <a href="http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/09/unifying-content-under-multilingual.html">rel-alternate</a> (unifying content under multilingual templates):</p> <blockquote> <p>If you have a global site containing pages where the: template (i.e. side navigation, footer) is machine-translated into various languages, main content remains unchanged, creating largely duplicate pages, and sometimes search results direct users to the wrong language, we’d like to help you better target your international/multilingual audience through:</p> <code> <link rel=”alternate” hreflang="a-different-language" href="http://url-of-the-different-language-page" /></code> </blockquote> Another candidate: rel-alternate (unifying content under multilingual templates):

If you have a global site containing pages where the:
template (i.e. side navigation, footer) is machine-translated into various languages,
main content remains unchanged, creating largely duplicate pages,
and sometimes search results direct users to the wrong language, we’d like to help you better target your international/multilingual audience through:


<link rel=”alternate” hreflang="a-different-language" href="http://url-of-the-different-language-page" />

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2400 Sebastian Tue, 18 May 2010 15:34:04 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2400 FYI: Google considers rel-canonical HTTP headers, but is not eager to implement them anytime soon. Please <a href="http://maileohye.com/rel-canonical-non-html-files/">learn more at Maile Ohye's blog and speak out</a>! FYI: Google considers rel-canonical HTTP headers, but is not eager to implement them anytime soon. Please learn more at Maile Ohye’s blog and speak out!

]]> By: Tinus http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2106 Tinus Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:10:40 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2106 Want. Want.

]]> By: SearchCap: The Day In Search, December 23, 2009 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2094 SearchCap: The Day In Search, December 23, 2009 Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:07:05 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2094 [...] URI canonicalization with an X-Canonical-URI HTTP header, sebastians-pamphlets.com [...] […] URI canonicalization with an X-Canonical-URI HTTP header, sebastians-pamphlets.com […]

]]> By: mohsin http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2091 mohsin Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:30:12 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2091 You are right,specially the issue of "dynamically created PDFs, plain text files, or images" is very common in various CMS like Joomla that offer buttons to view the content in PDF or Print Format etc. And most of the CMS users are not technically savvy enough to implement these "best practices" on their own. I think Search Engines,specially, Google is getting tired of crawling of the web and they want to limit things by useless technical implementations. You are right,specially the issue of “dynamically created PDFs, plain text files, or images” is very common in various CMS like Joomla that offer buttons to view the content in PDF or Print Format etc. And most of the CMS users are not technically savvy enough to implement these “best practices” on their own. I think Search Engines,specially, Google is getting tired of crawling of the web and they want to limit things by useless technical implementations.

]]> By: Vitorio http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2089 Vitorio Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:49:48 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/x-canonical-uri-http-header/#comment-2089 Since the canonical URL was implemented as a LINK element, you can use the already-existing LINK header instead of making a new one. <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06">The latest spec is still in draft</a>, but it's been around since before HTTP/1.1. With the LINK header, a canonical link could look like this if the current URL was the canonical version: Link: <http://example.com/canonical-uri/>; rel=canonical Or like this if it wasn't: Link: <http://example.com/canonical-uri/>; rel="canonical" In theory, this should already work (for example, you can include style sheets via your headers in this fashion). (P.S. Your comment form doesn't support plus signs in email addresses.) Since the canonical URL was implemented as a LINK element, you can use the already-existing LINK header instead of making a new one.

The latest spec is still in draft, but it’s been around since before HTTP/1.1.

With the LINK header, a canonical link could look like this if the current URL was the canonical version:

Link: <http://example.com/canonical-uri/>; rel=canonical

Or like this if it wasn’t:

Link: <http://example.com/canonical-uri/>; rel=”canonical”

In theory, this should already work (for example, you can include style sheets via your headers in this fashion).

(P.S. Your comment form doesn’t support plus signs in email addresses.)

]]>