3 ms·

If only this RFC was well-known among the people who actually put stuff out on the Web.

seeknotfind 2y ago
How about an LLM agent which automatically finds inconsistencies in RFCs.
russellbeattie 2y ago
If only that RFC didn't make it a hidden directory. I can think of a dozen reasons why hiding that folder is a horrible idea, and not a single one for why it would be a good thing to do.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  The reason is because it's supposed to be a standard folder that isn't in use accidentally for other purposes. It's exceedingly unlikely that a website is going to just happen to make content available in a hidden directory path without it being created by automated tooling (which would likely be aware of such standards). The entire point is to avoid adopting a path that people already publicly use for something else. A hidden directory is the best way to do that.
- ftmch 2y ago
  Also "well-known" was always such an awkward name to me.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    It's a joke about things being described as needing to be put at "well known" paths.
- darrenf 2y ago
  > If only that RFC didn't make it a hidden directory. There's zero guidance on configuring how URIs under `/.well-known/` should be served at all, is there? They just reserve/sandbox the initial path component for the URI schemes which support it. That's it. It's the developers' choice to implement it as a directory - hidden or otherwise - on a filesystem; neither RFC says they SHOULD or MUST be served in such a way. (The updated RFC says "e.g., on a filesystem" in section 4.1, and mentions directories in section 4.4 in a way that, to my eyes, pretty much recommends against making it hidden)
- teddyh 2y ago
  A URL path is not a directory path; there is no reason to assume that a path must be served by a directory by the same name. I mean, do you assume that there somewhere exists an actual machine with its Unix hostname set to “news.ycombinator.com”?
  - baby_souffle 2y ago
    > there is no reason to assume that a path must be served by a directory by the same name Other than static sites, sure.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      Even in static sites, rewrite rules are a thing.
    - teddyh 2y ago
      Even static sites might be served out of a simple hash table in RAM. A URL path is not a file path: <https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>
arthurcolle 2y ago
OpenAI was good about using well known for plugins
- jo32 2y ago
  Any example?
  - nl 2y ago
    Look in the URL field in all the files in https://github.com/cfortuner/wellknown/tree/main/plugins https://github.com/cfortuner/wellknown/tree/main/plugins Eg: https://www.wolframalpha.com/.well-known/apispec.json https://www.wolframalpha.com/.well-known/apispec.json
  - arthurcolle 2y ago
    they did a good attempt but I think they just realized (at same pace as people like me) that you can just grab all this shit from OpenAPI and not worry about defining custom format
bawolff 2y ago
I think it is. Lots of actually used standards use it. I see it in the wild all the time. Certainly more well used than content negotiation which grandparent also mentioned.
nl 2y ago
It's very broadly used. For example: - Apple uses it for their app to website association files - OpenID Connect uses it for connection discovery - security.txt is usually served from .well-known - JSON Web Tokens uses it for Web Key Sets to verify public keys - LetsEncrypt uses it for its ACME HTTPS verification protocol. There's probably more, but these are ones I've personally used.

How about an LLM agent which automatically finds inconsistencies in RFCs.

If only that RFC didn't make it a hidden directory. I can think of a dozen reasons why hiding that folder is a horrible idea, and not a single one for why it would be a good thing to do.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago
The reason is because it's supposed to be a standard folder that isn't in use accidentally for other purposes. It's exceedingly unlikely that a website is going to just happen to make content available in a hidden directory path without it being created by automated tooling (which would likely be aware of such standards). The entire point is to avoid adopting a path that people already publicly use for something else. A hidden directory is the best way to do that.
ftmch 2y ago
Also "well-known" was always such an awkward name to me.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  It's a joke about things being described as needing to be put at "well known" paths.
darrenf 2y ago
> If only that RFC didn't make it a hidden directory. There's zero guidance on configuring how URIs under `/.well-known/` should be served at all, is there? They just reserve/sandbox the initial path component for the URI schemes which support it. That's it. It's the developers' choice to implement it as a directory - hidden or otherwise - on a filesystem; neither RFC says they SHOULD or MUST be served in such a way. (The updated RFC says "e.g., on a filesystem" in section 4.1, and mentions directories in section 4.4 in a way that, to my eyes, pretty much recommends against making it hidden)
teddyh 2y ago
A URL path is not a directory path; there is no reason to assume that a path must be served by a directory by the same name. I mean, do you assume that there somewhere exists an actual machine with its Unix hostname set to “news.ycombinator.com”?
- baby_souffle 2y ago
  > there is no reason to assume that a path must be served by a directory by the same name Other than static sites, sure.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    Even in static sites, rewrite rules are a thing.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    Even static sites might be served out of a simple hash table in RAM. A URL path is not a file path: <https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>

arthurcolle 2y ago

OpenAI was good about using well known for plugins

jo32 2y ago
Any example?
- nl 2y ago
  Look in the URL field in all the files in https://github.com/cfortuner/wellknown/tree/main/plugins https://github.com/cfortuner/wellknown/tree/main/plugins Eg: https://www.wolframalpha.com/.well-known/apispec.json https://www.wolframalpha.com/.well-known/apispec.json
- arthurcolle 2y ago
  they did a good attempt but I think they just realized (at same pace as people like me) that you can just grab all this shit from OpenAPI and not worry about defining custom format

bawolff 2y ago

I think it is. Lots of actually used standards use it. I see it in the wild all the time. Certainly more well used than content negotiation which grandparent also mentioned.

nl 2y ago

It's very broadly used. For example: - Apple uses it for their app to website association files - OpenID Connect uses it for connection discovery - security.txt is usually served from .well-known - JSON Web Tokens uses it for Web Key Sets to verify public keys - LetsEncrypt uses it for its ACME HTTPS verification protocol. There's probably more, but these are ones I've personally used.