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

Re: Issue #691 on .well-known

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:30:20 -0400
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Yakov Shafranovich <yakov@noom.com>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>, public-csv-wg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <5627E7CC.80901@dbooth.org>
On 10/21/2015 12:05 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2015, at 17:57, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> 2. Rename section 5.3 to: "Standard URI Patterns and Site-wide
>> Location Configuration"
> I am sorry, but I disagree. It is an unnecessary to bring in a new
> concept in the standard. There should be a forward reference to a
> default case, but that is where, in my view, this should stop.

I do not see what new concept you think it adds.  It is merely calling 
attention to an *existing* feature that is described in that section, so 
that future readers will not have the same misunderstanding that you and 
I had.  Right now, that feature is lumped under the "Site-wide Location 
Configuration" title, which is somewhat misleading, because section 5.3 
really describes *both* the site-wide location configuration feature 
(.well-known) *and* the standard-URI-pattern feature.  Both you and I 
had been previously misled by the current title.

>> 3. Add an editorial comment to section 5.3 like: "Publishers of
>> metadata files should bear in mind that use of the .well-known
>> feature to specify non-standard URI patterns may be confusing to
>> users and future maintainers who may only know to look for metadata
>> files matching the standard URI patterns, and may therefore make
>> your metadata files harder for users to find when they look for
>> them directly."
> And I disagree again. This is not appropriate for a standard: what
> this actually says is "yes, there is a feature in the standard, and
> many people will not implement it anyway, but that is all right, so
> do not use this feature". This is not a text to be put into the
> document.

I think you are reading more into the proposed text above than it 
actually says.  The proposed text above is intended to do *exactly* what 
a spec *should* do: inform the reader of the implications of each 
feature so that the reader can best make informed choices.   When there 
is a significant downside of a particular feature we have a 
responsibility to clearly point that out.  AFAICT the proposed text does 
that.  But if you think the proposed text above needs tweaking to do so 
better, please suggest other wording.

David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 19:30:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:52 UTC