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.
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/36

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
   space.
]]

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
2009-11-06."
and
"Please discuss this draft on the apps-discuss@ietf.org [1] mailing
   list.
[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)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Oct/0030.html
  * draft-nottingham-site-meta: registration too slow, opaque Dan
    Connolly (Thursday, 22 October)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Oct/0029.html


-- 
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:18 GMT