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

Re: .well-known

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:29:07 -0400
Message-ID: <55831C03.3030400@dbooth.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 06/18/2015 12:56 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2015, at 7:43 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Hi David, I found a link to the minutes here:
> https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2015/telcons/06-03-csv-minutes.md
> (already added to the issue).
>
> The minutes arenít particularly illuminating, but the issue raised by
> mnot was definitely concern over squatting. At this point, it seems
> to be settled. Iíve implemented it in my implementation, and it was
> quite straight-forward, although it requires an extra GET, the result
> of this can be cached for some time (subject to policies, of
> course).

Thanks very much for the pointer.  I've read through the discussion and 
the TAG meeting minutes, and re-read RFC7320 , and I'm convinced that 
concerns about URI squatting are unfounded in this case.  I have written 
to the TAG to push back, explaining how this case is different from URI 
squatting, and the use of .well-known would actually cause more harm 
than good in this case:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Jun/0011.html

BTW, you are extremely unlikely to be able to cache the result of 
accessing .well-known/csvw , because in the vast majority of cases it 
will be 404.

Thanks,
David Booth

>
>> 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
>
> Itís still in a PR that hasnít yet been pulled:
> https://github.com/w3c/csvw/pull/605. You likely say a page based on
> that branch, rather than the gh-pages branch where the ED is
> available.
>
> Itís awaiting resolution of some minor wording on what ďno such file
> is locatedĒ means, precisely.
>
> Gregg
>
>> 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 19:29:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 June 2015 19:29:38 UTC