4 ms·

I understand the theoretical argument. We follow the precedent of robots.txt, ads.txt, and llms.txt. The reason is friction. Platforms like Shopify and Wix ma

by tsazan 10mo ago

I understand the theoretical argument. We follow the precedent of robots.txt, ads.txt, and llms.txt. The reason is friction. Platforms like Shopify and Wix make .well-known folders difficult or impossible for merchants to configure. Root files work everywhere. Adoption matters more than namespace hygiene.

JimDabell 10mo ago
How about following the precedent of all of these users of /.well-known/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI#List_of_well-known_URIs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI#List_of_well-kn... robots.txt was created three decades ago, when we didn’t know any better. Moving llms.txt to /.well-known/ is literally issue #2 for llms.txt https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2 https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2 Please stop polluting the web.
- tsazan 10mo ago
  I prioritize simplicity and adoption for non-technical users over strict IETF compliance right now. My goal is to make this work for a shop owner on Shopify and Wix, not just for sysadmins. That said, I am open to supporting .well-known as a secondary location in v1.1 if the community wants it.
  - xemdetia 10mo ago
    How is using a standard path 'just for sysadmins' again? You are introducing something new today.
    - tsazan 10mo ago
      Try uploading a file to /.well-known/ on Shopify or Wix. You cannot. Their file managers block hidden directories (starting with a dot). To do it, you need a custom app, a meta-field hack, or a reverse proxy. That is sysadmin work. Uploading a file to the root is user work. That is the difference.
      - reddalo 10mo ago
        So the solution is that both Shopify and Wix should let the user edit those files. That's it.
        tsazan 10mo ago
        Agreed. In a perfect world, they would. But I cannot merge PRs into Shopify's core. Waiting for trillion-dollar corporations to change their security models is a death sentence for a new protocol. We build for the infrastructure that exists today, not the one we wish for. When they open the gates, we will move. Until then, we live in the root.
  - hrimfaxi 10mo ago
    How are comments handled on proposals? Are you the final authority on the standard or is there some community consensus?
    - tsazan 10mo ago
      I am the initiator, not the dictator. Governance is defined in Section 13: Contributing & Governance. Decisions are made by consensus of the Working Group. Right now, we are bootstrapping. I make the initial calls to ship v1.0, but the roadmap involves the community. I invite you to open an Issue.
robotstxtwasbad 10mo ago
RFC 8820 section 2.3, also known as BCP 190, is not a theoretical argument. That's why we call it a "best current practice". You, nor any other standard like you, are not entitled to declare what a root URI means in my Web namespace, and you are up against an IETF MUST NOT by fighting for this. This is a _very_ philosophical argument, not a practical one, and it's why I'm firmly against your standard out of the gate (and would work to reject it as, say, an RFC). The same paragraph takes you to RFC 8615, which is the .well-known you are being told to use. That is not your "secondary location" for v1.1. That is the only path you are permitted to consider as someone with intent to standardize a portion of the HTTP URI namespace. The decades-old precedent you are citing here, and leaning on as foundational, was rejected at the philosophical level by the IETF, and it is completely rejected as appropriate precedent for the writing of standards going forward. You are being told how the Web works. It's not about you, the magical universe of agentic, or your community. You are attempting to standardize a part of the technical commons. If you want the public to obey your standard, this isn't the way to engage while selling it -- despite it being CC0, you're phasing in and out of "my" standard and "our" standard a little oddly, and you're a little standoffish to (correct) feedback, feedback that in this case is existential to your project making it to a dozen stars and a discussion. Wix and Shopify have zero bearing on the standardization of the Web. Companies in general shouldn't, in fact (har har), which is useful background for an aspiring standards writer.
- tsazan 10mo ago
  I appreciate the detailed feedback (and the edits). You are technically correct regarding IETF norms. But you say: "Wix and Shopify have zero bearing on the standardization of the Web." I fundamentally disagree. The Web is not just a namespace for engineers; it is an economy for millions of small businesses. If a standard is technically "pure" but unusable by 80% of merchants on hosted platforms, it fails the Web. However, to respect the namespace: We will mandate checking /.well-known/commerce.txt first. But we will keep the root location as a fallback. We prioritize accessibility for the "aspiring" shop owner over strict purity for the standards writer.
  - robotstxtwasbad 10mo ago

by tsazan 10mo ago

JimDabell 10mo ago

How about following the precedent of all of these users of /.well-known/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI#List_of_well-known_URIs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI#List_of_well-kn... robots.txt was created three decades ago, when we didn’t know any better. Moving llms.txt to /.well-known/ is literally issue #2 for llms.txt https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2 https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/llms-txt/issues/2 Please stop polluting the web.

tsazan 10mo ago
I prioritize simplicity and adoption for non-technical users over strict IETF compliance right now. My goal is to make this work for a shop owner on Shopify and Wix, not just for sysadmins. That said, I am open to supporting .well-known as a secondary location in v1.1 if the community wants it.
- xemdetia 10mo ago
  How is using a standard path 'just for sysadmins' again? You are introducing something new today.
  - tsazan 10mo ago
    Try uploading a file to /.well-known/ on Shopify or Wix. You cannot. Their file managers block hidden directories (starting with a dot). To do it, you need a custom app, a meta-field hack, or a reverse proxy. That is sysadmin work. Uploading a file to the root is user work. That is the difference.
    - reddalo 10mo ago
      So the solution is that both Shopify and Wix should let the user edit those files. That's it.
      - tsazan 10mo ago
        Agreed. In a perfect world, they would. But I cannot merge PRs into Shopify's core. Waiting for trillion-dollar corporations to change their security models is a death sentence for a new protocol. We build for the infrastructure that exists today, not the one we wish for. When they open the gates, we will move. Until then, we live in the root.
- hrimfaxi 10mo ago
  How are comments handled on proposals? Are you the final authority on the standard or is there some community consensus?
  - tsazan 10mo ago
    I am the initiator, not the dictator. Governance is defined in Section 13: Contributing & Governance. Decisions are made by consensus of the Working Group. Right now, we are bootstrapping. I make the initial calls to ship v1.0, but the roadmap involves the community. I invite you to open an Issue.

robotstxtwasbad 10mo ago

RFC 8820 section 2.3, also known as BCP 190, is not a theoretical argument. That's why we call it a "best current practice". You, nor any other standard like you, are not entitled to declare what a root URI means in my Web namespace, and you are up against an IETF MUST NOT by fighting for this. This is a _very_ philosophical argument, not a practical one, and it's why I'm firmly against your standard out of the gate (and would work to reject it as, say, an RFC). The same paragraph takes you to RFC 8615, which is the .well-known you are being told to use. That is not your "secondary location" for v1.1. That is the only path you are permitted to consider as someone with intent to standardize a portion of the HTTP URI namespace. The decades-old precedent you are citing here, and leaning on as foundational, was rejected at the philosophical level by the IETF, and it is completely rejected as appropriate precedent for the writing of standards going forward. You are being told how the Web works. It's not about you, the magical universe of agentic, or your community. You are attempting to standardize a part of the technical commons. If you want the public to obey your standard, this isn't the way to engage while selling it -- despite it being CC0, you're phasing in and out of "my" standard and "our" standard a little oddly, and you're a little standoffish to (correct) feedback, feedback that in this case is existential to your project making it to a dozen stars and a discussion. Wix and Shopify have zero bearing on the standardization of the Web. Companies in general shouldn't, in fact (har har), which is useful background for an aspiring standards writer.

tsazan 10mo ago
I appreciate the detailed feedback (and the edits). You are technically correct regarding IETF norms. But you say: "Wix and Shopify have zero bearing on the standardization of the Web." I fundamentally disagree. The Web is not just a namespace for engineers; it is an economy for millions of small businesses. If a standard is technically "pure" but unusable by 80% of merchants on hosted platforms, it fails the Web. However, to respect the namespace: We will mandate checking /.well-known/commerce.txt first. But we will keep the root location as a fallback. We prioritize accessibility for the "aspiring" shop owner over strict purity for the standards writer.
- robotstxtwasbad 10mo ago