W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2009

Last Call: draft-nottingham-site-meta (Defining Well-Known URIs) / ISSUE-36 siteData-36

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:56:28 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1256230588.4607.1555.camel@pav.lan>
The TAG has had an issue on well-known URIs for years now...

ISSUE-36 siteData-36 Web site metadata improving on robots.txt, w3c/p3p
and favicon etc.

The site-meta design seems to address it, essentially, as follows:

To address this, this memo defines a path prefix for these "well-
   known locations", "/.well-known/".  Future specifications that need
   to define a resource for such site-wide metadata can register their
   use to avoid collisions and minimise impingement upon sites' URI

This design is in "speak now or forever hold your peace" mode, aka Last
Call, in the IETF:

"Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by
"Please discuss this draft on the apps-discuss@ietf.org [1] mailing
[1]  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss> "

I sent a procedural and an editorial comment, but as to the technical
content... I'm pretty much OK with it. Some thinking out loud:

I prefer that people would use Link: ... i.e. rather
than the client making an unsolicited request for /favicon.ico ,
it would just fetch the page it's after and look for
  Link: rel="icon" href="/company-logo.ico"
Maybe I should send a comment asking that the spec note that
alternative. Meanwhile, there are cases (e.g. P3P) where the
resource at the well-known location is something you need
*before* you make other requests, so the Link: technique doesn't
always suffice (even if I could go back in time and
get clients to stop making unsolicited requests for /favicon.ico).

Given that, I'm somewhat inclined to propose that this
design addresses TAG issue siteData-36... perhaps this draft
along with the Link: draft... maybe a short finding that
also mentions the sitemap.xml stuff is in order. Hmm.

FYI, the comments I did send are:

 * draft-nottingham-site-meta: put key bit (/.well-known/) in the
abstract Dan Connolly (Thursday, 22 October)
  * draft-nottingham-site-meta: registration too slow, opaque Dan
    Connolly (Thursday, 22 October)

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

attached mail follows:

FYI on the W3C side.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> Date: 10 October 2009 12:38:41 AM AEDT
> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Subject: Last Call: draft-nottingham-site-meta (Defining Well-Known  
> URIs) to Proposed Standard
> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to  
> consider
> the following document:
> - 'Defining Well-Known URIs '
>   <draft-nottingham-site-meta-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to  
> the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-11-06. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-03.txt
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17778&rfc_flag=0
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 16:56:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:04 UTC