- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:29:07 -0400
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 06/18/2015 12:56 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >> On Jun 17, 2015, at 7:43 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> >> On 06/17/2015 02:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> the .well-known mechanism is the result of a long discussion with >>> the TAG that had difficulties with the principle of baking in >>> URI-schemes like "-metadata.json". >> >> Is there a pointer to that discussion? It sounds like the TAG >> concern is URI squatting. URI squatting is an important concern, >> but I don't think it applies in this case, because -- if I've >> understood correctly -- a metadata file *explicitly* references the >> relevant data file, which in effect means that the URI owner has >> clearly indicated an intent to use that URI for that purpose. > > Hi David, I found a link to the minutes here: > https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2015/telcons/06-03-csv-minutes.md > (already added to the issue). > > The minutes aren’t particularly illuminating, but the issue raised by > mnot was definitely concern over squatting. At this point, it seems > to be settled. I’ve implemented it in my implementation, and it was > quite straight-forward, although it requires an extra GET, the result > of this can be cached for some time (subject to policies, of > course). Thanks very much for the pointer. I've read through the discussion and the TAG meeting minutes, and re-read RFC7320 , and I'm convinced that concerns about URI squatting are unfounded in this case. I have written to the TAG to push back, explaining how this case is different from URI squatting, and the use of .well-known would actually cause more harm than good in this case: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Jun/0011.html BTW, you are extremely unlikely to be able to cache the result of accessing .well-known/csvw , because in the vast majority of cases it will be 404. Thanks, David Booth > >> HOWEVER, I no longer see any mention of .well-known in the current >> editor's draft, so maybe my concern is moot: >> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/syntax/#locating-metadata > > It’s still in a PR that hasn’t yet been pulled: > https://github.com/w3c/csvw/pull/605. You likely say a page based on > that branch, rather than the gh-pages branch where the ED is > available. > > It’s awaiting resolution of some minor wording on what “no such file > is located” means, precisely. > > Gregg > >> Has the .well-known mechanism now been removed from the algorithm >> for finding metadata? >> >> Thanks, David Booth >> >>> Note that the agreement is to have a default fall-back, ie, if >>> the .well-known file does not exist then the client can fall back >>> to a default value which, actually, reproduces the previous >>> patterns. I think we should go ahead with this approach to cover >>> all points of views. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 05:20 , David Booth <david@dbooth.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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...) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: >>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: >>> http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 19:29:38 UTC