Re: Request for well-known URI: associations.json

[Patrick Stahlberg <[e-mail]>]

We wanted something short, but we absolutely see your point about it being
generic. asset_statements.json doesn't sound too bad, but it's quite long
and we worry that people will get confused about whether there is a dash or
an underscore in the name. Does "assetlinks.json" or even simply
"assetlinks" sound acceptable to you?

Thanks,
Patrick
 On May 21, 2015 1:05 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> "statements.json" does indeed seem very generic; is there a reason you're
> not using something like "asset_statements.json"?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> > On 20 May 2015, at 8:38 pm, Patrick Stahlberg <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > apologies -- I had read your earlier email as "you're good to go; just
> send us the spec when your product launches".  That's entirely my fault.
> >
> > We've prepared a spec and it's attached as a PDF file.  It's still in a
> somewhat rough shape, but should have all the important pieces.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > Again, having the spec is the next necessary step. I can't really
> comment on the name until I've seen it — although "statements" is
> *extremely* generic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 15 May 2015, at 1:06 am, Patrick Stahlberg <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again,
> > >
> > > our project has evolved a bit.  We would still like to store
> information about the relationship between online assets, but the
> information is going to be encoded in the form of "statements".  Therefore,
> we think a more fitting name would now be:
> > >
> > >   .well-known/statements.json
> > >
> > > Do we still have your preliminary approval for this new name?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Patrick Stahlberg <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > Thanks!  We will let you know.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick
> > > On Mar 31, 2015 8:52 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > Sure. Best thing to do is to ping this list once your spec becomes
> public (even in draft form), and we’ll do the registration.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 1 Apr 2015, at 5:20 am, Patrick Stahlberg <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am writing on behalf of a team at Google working on new ways to
> surface associations between web sites and other online "assets".  For a
> planned launch, we would like to register the well-known URI
> "associations.json" as requested in RFC 5785.
> > > >
> > > > We would like to ask web site owners to publish a file at this
> location that follows a simple JSON format and that includes information
> about other assets that are related to the site on which the
> associations.json is published.  We plan for the format to be open and
> usable by anyone.  We would like to publish a full specification of the
> format once we have enough confidence internally in its design.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Patrick
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > wellknown-uri-review mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> <AssetLinksWell-KnownURISpec.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > wellknown-uri-review mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>