zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. benatk+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-05-04 21:42:19
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.

replies(1): >>thwart+ya
2. thwart+ya[view] [source] 2023-05-04 22:47:57
>>benatk+(OP)
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.

replies(1): >>benatk+md
◧◩
3. benatk+md[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-04 23:08:48
>>thwart+ya
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.

replies(1): >>thwart+VD
◧◩◪
4. thwart+VD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-05 03:40:43
>>benatk+md
~/.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.
replies(1): >>benatk+UE
◧◩◪◨
5. benatk+UE[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-05-05 03:52:01
>>thwart+VD
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.
[go to top]