- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:20:28 -0400
- To: public-csv-wg@w3.org
I'm sorry to ask this question at this point, but is .well-known *really* needed for this? I am concerned that it is just adding complexity and network accesses for dubious benefit. AFAICT -- but please correct me if I've overlooked something -- the only "benefit" that .well-known adds here is to allow users to use non-standard names for their metadata files. And what *real* benefit is that? It seems to me to be adding pointless variability. Are there really cases where users *cannot* name their metadata files to end with "-metadata.json"? If so what are they? David Booth On 06/16/2015 09:20 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote: > Hmm. I am wondering if we can use the host-meta file instead, skipping > the registration, as per this: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6415#section-4.2 > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >> On Jun 16, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Yakov Shafranovich <yakov-ietf@shaftek.org> >> wrote: >> >> What's the proposed format? >> >> It's simply a file with one URI pattern per line. You can see the proposed >> text here: >> https://rawgit.com/w3c/csvw/98e728bcfef8d30e68c10f9cd798da0d39c7d172/syntax/index.html#site-wide-location-configuration >> >> Gregg >> >> >> On Jun 16, 2015 3:38 PM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> Jeni, Gregg, >>> >>> I have just received the green light from our system people to set up the >>> .well-known csw file. Can you ping me when the changes are added to the >>> documents and the issue is closed? I would also need to know if it should >>> contain anything else than the default. >>> >>> I will also take care of the registration when the document is available. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman >>> +31 641044153 >>> >>> (Written on my mobile. Excuses for brevity and frequent misspellings...) >>> >>> >>> >> > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 03:20:57 UTC