headers
Brad Fitzpatrick | 2 May 18:13
Gravatar

Re: On the proliferation of well-known URLs; draft-nottingham-site-meta-01



On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Sam Johnston <samj <at> samj.net> wrote:
Brad,

Sounds like a good idea, though I'd avoid using characters which are likely to break scripts/filters/etc.

That's kinda the point.
 
Perhaps something like "/__meta__" would be a better bet?

That's even worse than host-meta in the sense that it's more common of a username pattern (more sites allow "_" than "-" in a username).  And one of my main concerns is the number of sites that give users a URL like site.com/USERNAME


_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Eran Hammer-Lahav | 4 May 17:18
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: On the proliferation of well-known URLs; draft-nottingham-site-meta-01

This makes sense but I don’t have strong views here. My only concern is to get this adopted for host-meta so whatever proves to be the path of least resistance works for me.

 

On the business of using odd characters, isn’t choosing any ‘*/’ prefix going to solve your concerns? No site I know allows using ‘/’ for usernames, short URLs, etc. I’m afraid making the prefix “ugly” will cause people not to use it and will make documenting it confusing to people who will not be expecting something like that.

 

EHL

 

From: apps-discuss-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brad Fitzpatrick
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Sam Johnston
Cc: apps-discuss <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: On the proliferation of well-known URLs; draft-nottingham-site-meta-01

 

 

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Sam Johnston <samj <at> samj.net> wrote:

Brad,

Sounds like a good idea, though I'd avoid using characters which are likely to break scripts/filters/etc.


That's kinda the point.
 

Perhaps something like "/__meta__" would be a better bet?


That's even worse than host-meta in the sense that it's more common of a username pattern (more sites allow "_" than "-" in a username).  And one of my main concerns is the number of sites that give users a URL like site.com/USERNAME

 

_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Nicolas Williams | 4 May 18:06
Picon

Re: On the proliferation of well-known URLs; draft-nottingham-site-meta-01

On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:18:17AM -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> This makes sense but I don’t have strong views here. My only concern
> is to get this adopted for host-meta so whatever proves to be the path
> of least resistance works for me.
> 
> On the business of using odd characters, isn’t choosing any ‘*/’
> prefix going to solve your concerns? No site I know allows using ‘/’
> for usernames, short URLs, etc. I’m afraid making the prefix “ugly”
> will cause people not to use it and will make documenting it confusing
> to people who will not be expecting something like that.

But sites do often allow users to have files, so "*/" falls down.
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Eran Hammer-Lahav | 4 May 18:45
Favicon
Gravatar

RE: On the proliferation of well-known URLs; draft-nottingham-site-meta-01

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams <at> sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:07 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: Brad Fitzpatrick; Sam Johnston; apps-discuss <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: On the proliferation of well-known URLs; draft-nottingham-
> site-meta-01
> 
> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:18:17AM -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> > This makes sense but I don’t have strong views here. My only concern
> > is to get this adopted for host-meta so whatever proves to be the
> path
> > of least resistance works for me.
> >
> > On the business of using odd characters, isn’t choosing any ‘*/’
> > prefix going to solve your concerns? No site I know allows using ‘/’
> > for usernames, short URLs, etc. I’m afraid making the prefix “ugly”
> > will cause people not to use it and will make documenting it
> confusing
> > to people who will not be expecting something like that.
> 
> But sites do often allow users to have files, so "*/" falls down.

That goes beyond what we can reasonable protect against. If you are going to let users do whatever they want
on your root namespace, you are going to have other problems. Sites allowing users to have files under
custom sub-directories will need more protections than just some *potentially* illegal characters.

EHL
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane