zlacker

> .well-known seems unintuitive

We're talking about folks setting up a custom domain for a personal social media presence. If they can handle nameservers and DNS records, they can handle a folder with a dot in the name.

>>ceejay+(OP)
but it disappears when you add the dot.

>>ceejay+(OP)
They can and probably should but what if they decide not to?

That's the problem with expecting people to agree with and follow standards.

>>benatk+n9
If they decide not to, then they get all the capabilities, responsibilities, and level of participation that come with not following a standard that others are expecting.

You've effectively described what happens when people don't agree.

>>thwart+Vj
There's already a strong precedent for something like .well-known being disregarded — the ~/.config directory. It's the same idea, a special directory starting with a dot, and the objection seems to be similar, that it's awkward. In the case of the config directory it's that the storage for an app is spread between multiple directories like ~/.local/share and ~/.cache instead of one directory like ~/.vim

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/XDG_Base_Directory

I support both well-known and XDG because I think the benefit outweighs that perhaps they could have been designed better. But I don't think that those who opt out of it could only be doing so out of ignorance.

>>benatk+Jm
~/.config is an interesting contrast. The difference is .well-known has different producers and consumers, webmasters and web clients, respectively. Whereas the thing that uses an application's config files is the same as the thing that created it.

>>thwart+iN
With .well-known they're sometimes different components of the same tool, like with letsencrypt. That's a good observation though. I hadn't noticed that.