Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt

The purpose of this doc isn't to document current use; it's to stop a flood of specs in the ietf from stomping over URLs arbitrarily, because those involved don't understand the web. 

If we can improve it so that it does both, great, but I don't want to dilute its value for the latter. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 07/08/2013, at 3:46 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> I'll leave that one for the TAG et al to discuss; sniffing filename extensions is new, isn't it?
> 
> It's not new and therefore acknowledging it seems appropriate.
> 
> 
>> The other one I'm aware of is the +web stuff in the URI scheme, but that can be taken care of with a short update to the URI scheme registration doc.
> 
> Documents that nobody uses are not an effective measure I think.
> 
> 
>>> Simon Sapin pointed out there's also /robots.txt. And there's
>>> /favicon.ico. Apple has hijacked various icon related URLs too, which
>>> other vendors have copied to some extent. It seems at least
>>> "/favicon.ico" and "/robots.txt" should be considered exceptions, too.
>> 
>> Yeah, that's not standard, so not really in scope for this (although it'd be nice if others listened). Effectively, they're grandfathered in by the well-known URI spec.
> 
> "/favicon.ico" is part of HTML these days, as fallback for lacking
> rel=icon. Not pointing out the well-known exceptions makes this
> document less useful than it could be I think. You make it much easier
> to dismiss by only caring about theory.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 14:05:25 UTC