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

When I did my survey last year for possible solutions, the issues raised about OPTIONS were lack of support/understanding in many web environments and hosting services, no caching, and the need to define a syntax for the OPTIONS response in addition to that of the metadata document. Of all these, the difficulty in deployment on both the server and client side (unfortunately) prevents OPTIONS from being used in most web protocols.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:33 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: Dan Connolly; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-site-meta (Defining Well-Known
> URIs) / ISSUE-36 siteData-36
> 
> 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.
> 
> ....Roy

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 22:48:59 UTC