Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known

Thanks.

Agreed on both points; I'll incorporate into the next drop.

On 13/07/2009, at 12:45 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> This looks good. I'm historically opposed to well-known URIs, but
> have mellowed to pragmatism in the past several years.
> I'm very happy to see the spec cover the minimum needed to
> do the job and you successfully avoided 'discovery' and left the  
> definition of
> sub-paths and query parameters to the spec for each well known  
> location.
>
> I have spotted two issues:
>
> 1) The problem with the current wording is that it leaves
> the use of fragment identifiers ambiguous in specs
> that defined well-known locations. I would suggest addressing it to
> remove the ambiguity.
>
>    It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
>    additional path components, query strings, or fragment identifiers
>
>    to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details
>    (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).
>
> 2) You explain that the spec doesn't say anything about the formats  
> and media-types
> to be expected at a well-known URI, but fail to mention that the same
> lack of guarantee also applies to the URI "/.well-known/" itself. To  
> the end
> of Section 3 you could add:
>
>    Note that this specification also does not define a format or  
> media-type
>
>    for the resource at "/.well-known/" and clients should not expect a
>    resource to exist at that location.
>    Thanks,
>    -joe
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>  
> wrote:
> See:
>  http://bit.ly/48bdmV
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/