W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > June 2015

Re: .well-known

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:43:03 -0400
Message-ID: <55823037.8020102@dbooth.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 06/17/2015 02:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> David,
>
> the .well-known mechanism is the result of a long discussion with the
> TAG that had difficulties with the principle of baking in URI-schemes
> like "-metadata.json".

Is there a pointer to that discussion?   It sounds like the TAG concern 
is URI squatting.  URI squatting is an important concern, but I don't 
think it applies in this case, because -- if I've understood correctly 
-- a metadata file *explicitly* references the relevant data file, which 
in effect means that the URI owner has clearly indicated an intent to 
use that URI for that purpose.

HOWEVER, I no longer see any mention of .well-known in the current 
editor's draft, so maybe my concern is moot:
http://w3c.github.io/csvw/syntax/#locating-metadata

Has the .well-known mechanism now been removed from the algorithm for 
finding metadata?

Thanks,
David Booth

> Note that the agreement is to have a default
> fall-back, ie, if the .well-known file does not exist then the client
> can fall back to a default value which, actually, reproduces the
> previous patterns. I think we should go ahead with this approach to
> cover all points of views.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 05:20 , David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry to ask this question at this point, but is .well-known
>> *really* needed for this?
>>
>> I am concerned that it is just adding complexity and network
>> accesses for dubious benefit.  AFAICT -- but please correct me if
>> I've overlooked something -- the only "benefit" that .well-known
>> adds here is to allow users to use non-standard names for their
>> metadata files.  And what *real* benefit is that?  It seems to me
>> to be adding pointless variability.  Are there really cases where
>> users *cannot* name their metadata files to end with
>> "-metadata.json"?  If so what are they?
>>
>> David Booth
>>
>> On 06/16/2015 09:20 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>>> Hmm. I am wondering if we can use the host-meta file instead,
>>> skipping the registration, as per this:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6415#section-4.2
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Gregg Kellogg
>>> <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Yakov Shafranovich
>>>> <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's the proposed format?
>>>>
>>>> It's simply a file with one URI pattern per line. You can see
>>>> the proposed text here:
>>>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/csvw/98e728bcfef8d30e68c10f9cd798da0d39c7d172/syntax/index.html#site-wide-location-configuration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Gregg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 16, 2015 3:38 PM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeni, Gregg,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just received the green light from our system people
>>>>> to set up the .well-known csw file. Can you ping me when the
>>>>> changes are added to the documents and the issue is closed? I
>>>>> would also need to know if it should contain anything else
>>>>> than the default.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will also take care of the registration when the document
>>>>> is available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- Ivan Herman +31 641044153
>>>>>
>>>>> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent
>>>>> misspellings...)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home:
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID:
> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 02:43:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 June 2015 02:43:35 UTC