25 ms·
webmaster@domain.com No need to overcomplicate this. .well-known is a terrible idea by the way, a <link rel> or <meta> would make much more sense.
by pmlnr 8y ago
webmaster@domain.com
No need to overcomplicate this.
.well-known is a terrible idea by the way, a <link rel> or <meta> would make much more sense.
- the8472 8y agonot everything HTTP serves HTML
- bmn__ 8y agoThe `Link` header exists which is the moral equivalent of the `link` element in HTML. That way you can express link relations on resources whose representations do not have hyperlinks. Example: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Content-Length: 153054 Content-Type: image/webp Link: <http://example.com/mediterranian-2019/olives.webp>; rel="next"; title="next image in album" See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288
- bmn__ 8y ago<link rel> is for a single resource, .well-known is for a whole site.