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 15:33:06 -0700
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DEA6066A-ED95-439E-B595-87ADE1B121C0@gbiv.com>
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On  
>> Behalf
>> Of Roy T. Fielding
>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:18 PM
>> 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.
> If we are going to give guidelines on when well-known are  
> appropriate, we should also include cases when there is no specific  
> resource to associate metadata with, such as site policy of location  
> of site-wide services. The use of the root resource for these cases  
> is abusive.

Agreed, though I don't understand why any of that is needed.
OPTIONS was designed for this purpose.

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 22:33:37 UTC

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