Opened 18 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
#3265 closed defect (bug) (fixed)
Default permalinks don't meet ret-tag spec
Reported by: |
|
Owned by: |
|
---|---|---|---|
Milestone: | 2.2 | Priority: | high |
Severity: | minor | Version: | 2.1 |
Component: | Administration | Keywords: | |
Focuses: | Cc: |
Description
Default permalinks don't meet ret-tag spec causing search engines to mis-tag blog posts.
Example <a href="http://localhost/wp/trunk/?cat=1" title="View all posts in Uncategorized" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a>
The rel-tag spec says that the last path component defines the tag.
Technorati currently works around this problem.
Change History (7)
#2
@
18 years ago
- Resolution set to wontfix
- Status changed from assigned to closed
The spec is not flexible enoguh, and I expressed this when it was written. I'm not inclined to change our behaviour.
#3
@
18 years ago
Or that. ;-)
Unfortunately, parsers will have to continue to write code specifically to handle WordPress (maybe looking for ?cat=N
) Even if some other people started using the link text to specify the tag, as we do, parsers would have to code specifically for those circumstances too. There's no reliable way to figure "hey, this rel-tag link probably doesn't mean for 'wordpress' or 'blog' to be the tag... let's use the link text!" Definitely a problem with the spec, but our solution isn't exactly a clear path forward, unless we're expecting all other users of the spec to switch to using the link text as the tag indicator.
#4
@
18 years ago
Passing on this request from Kevin Marks from Technorati. I personally agree, let's leave "tags" up to tag plugins and categories like they are.
(20:08:55) (KevinMarks) if matt won't fix it, can you stop putting rel="tag" on it then please
Seems an unfortunate restriction of the spec, considering that mod_rewrite and PATHINFO permalinks aren't available for everyone, but the spec is what it is, so we should support it. As an aside, I wonder why Kevin and Tantek didn't have the tag grabbed from the link text. Probably a good answer to that question that I'm just not seeing.
I'll code the fix for trunk. Might be good to get it into 2.0.5 as well, or we're going to get a lot of crap for snubbing the spec.