RE: site-wide metadata [was: RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml]

> > Put another way, the problem is with standards (whether a de facto
> > standard by a single vendor, or a Recommendation from the W3C, or an
> > IETF standard, etc.) specifying URIs for other people.
>
> Amusingly, it's okay with e-mail addresses.  [email protected]?
>
> > It's true that they can choose to follow that standard or not, but
> > software will be written assuming that that URI means something
> > whether or not they do.

People should be free to do it, but that does not make it a good idea.

> Well, there's software out that that thinks "default.asp" and
> "index.html" means something.

As the publisher you *tell* Apache web server that index.html means
something special. Some authoring tools do give these filenames magical
status, but that doesn't make it good practice on the web.

> > This has consequences for both the Web sites that don't support it,
> > and the software that's expecting a specific behaviour without any
> > agreement that it'll happen.
>
> How many HTTP requests do you think we're talking about here?  The way
> I hear some people arguing, you'd think we were going to DoS half the
> web with this...
>
> Do I have a way defalated sense of how popular this is going to be, or
> what?

It *may* be world-shatteringly popular, it may not.

The choice is between ignoring good practice backed by good logic (as
suggested by some of the folks who got the web working in the first place)
or choosing one of the many other methods that are available.

Cheers,
Danny.




 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/