4 ms·
I don't understand why new proposed standards are still polluting the root namespace (also see llms.txt). These things should be put under /.well-known [1], no
by reddalo 9mo ago
I don't understand why new proposed standards are still polluting the root namespace (also see llms.txt).
These things should be put under /.well-known [1], not in the root.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI
- dkdcio 9mo agoI was not aware you shouldn’t do that — what’s the rationale/historical context?
- embedding-shape 9mo agoLike most standards: "Because it's a standard". Kind of like setting a .body for a GET request, you can kind of do that, but why not do it the way it's intended to instead? Use POST :)
- gunalx 9mo agoI have seen post being used instead of get, because of having encrypted parameters by default.
- embedding-shape 9mo agoYeah, and also because of firewalls sometimes stripping body of GET requests (not responses mind you, we're talking requests) to a server, and also because it's really uncommon to put a body on a GET request ;)
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- ljm 9mo agoSending a URL encoded form or some JSON in a POST request is also easier for most people to understand than the myriad ways you might format a query string in the URL (which may have a stricter limit on size). You only have to look at how different services handle arrays in query strings to understand that serialising it is conceptually easier. Comes up a lot in search or filter APIs. I'm sure there was some effort many moons ago to create a QUERY method for that.
- buildbuildbuild 9mo agoUser friendliness. I’ve seen several less-technical people able to quickly access, create, and understand “llms.txt”. It’s not ideal but representative of the tension between user experience and technical correctness.
- reddalo 9mo ago>less-technical people able to quickly access Why would somebody even want to access that file? It doesn't make any sense to make that more user friendly, it's for LLMs.