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

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:18:17 -0700
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <89CBC7F7-EA85-4062-A34D-584F5097602E@gbiv.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Oct 22, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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"

I would prefer that as well.  In fact, I'd say that these
"well-known" addresses should be limited to stuff that must be
known before a regular resource access, such as robots and P3P,
or are an efficiency replacement for regular access, like sitemap.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 20:18:51 GMT

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