3 ms·

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 w

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>

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>