A short while back, Google and a bunch of other search engines launched @rel="canonical", a standard for specifying that the current page is a copy of another, more canonical, version hosted elsewhere. I blogged about it at the time , and generally approved of the idea but warned against overuse when an HTTP redirect might be more sensible.
Recently there's been a large amount of discussion about @rev="canonical" , a proposal that seems to have been floated with the intention of providing URL shortening services. The idea is that my page can 'advertise' some other URLs that it can be found at so that clients can pick a different one to use when referring to it.
In this particular use case I could publish a page at http://ciaranmcnulty.com/blog/2009-04-14/a-long-blog-post-with-a-complex-url that had a @rel="canonical" link to http://ciaran.ws/complex (I don't really have that domain, don't bother trying it). Applications that wanted a shorter URL for the content (e.g. Twitter clients, SMS gateways) could then use my shorter URL rather than having to get a more obfuscated one from TinyURL or somewhere similar.
The number of sites that have already included the markup is staggering in such a short time, and a testament to how a simple markup idea like this can really take off (if only Microformats could gain this kind of uptake!). I've been reading a lot of the commentary that's bouncing around the HTML blogosphere, and thought I'd put my £0.02 in. Frankly, I fail to see the point of all the hooh-hah, for the following reasons: