So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
1–10 of 105 posts
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#2Why are they so specific?
Why password-reset instead of a more generic link tree?
Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries?
Seems like a waste of time. I would just define my own spec outside of well known for my use case.
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#3I wish people would follow this, instead of coming up with new standards in the root namespace. "llms.txt" [1] comes to mind, for example.
Let's stop polluting the root of a domain!
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#4Why are they so specific? Why password-reset instead of a more generic link tree? Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries? Seems like a waste of time. I would just define my own spec outside of well known for my use case.
Your own spec wouldn't be used by anyone else.
The password-reset well-known endpoint is used by password managers to show a "Change password..." button in their interface, which magically links to the password change page described in that well-known file.
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#5How well-known are those URIs though? :-\
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#6How well-known are those URIs though? :-\
I agree. I was hoping for a few positive examples, but didn't see any. The only one I know of is the OIDC discovery endpoint.
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#7Why are they so specific? Why password-reset instead of a more generic link tree? Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries? Seems like a waste of time. I would just define my own spec outside of well known for my use case.
Your own spec wouldn't be used by anyone else. The password-reset well-known endpoint is used by password managers to show a "Change password..." button in their interface, which magically links to the password change page described in that well-known file.
If the website implements it. What about email preferences? Removing account links? There are many use-cases you might want to redirect a user to, but having to make their own well known for it seems dumb instead of using a more generic one. I guess the more flexible it is, the harder adoption becomes as the usage within a spec might diverge, or it grows outside of the spec and becomes unofficial. So maybe password-reset is correct level of specification.
Anyway discord domain verification can tell in their onboarding docs to put it anywhere. It being well known does nothing. If there was a root level domain verification, then you might as well put it under that. But otherwise why go through a process?
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#8Why are they so specific? Why password-reset instead of a more generic link tree? Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries? Seems like a waste of time. I would just define my own spec outside of well known for my use case.
> Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries?
The TXT record itself is already a dynamic list of entries. It's far simpler and easier to iterate through the list and compare the start of each value with your search string until you find "discord domain verification" directly than it would be to do anything else.
Example:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "openai-domain-verification=dv-QbhxxK0G0JK0dnyZ4YTsNAfw"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:mailgun.org a:rsweb1-36.investorflow.com include:_spf.createsend.com include:servers.mcsv.net -all"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "MS=ms37374900"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "anthropic-domain-verification-0qe2ww=yK576oHdDgyTcXgkPfj1KXgGt"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "ZOOM_verify_2ndw8KZxSRa8PT8NmdyXvw"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=KsI69Y_jEVkp4eXqSQ9R9gwxjIpZznvuvrus6UolB9Y"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "ca3-4861b957e83847c188e45d04ec314ee3"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "apple-domain-verification=WG0sP5Alm7N6h1Te"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "dropbox-domain-verification=asc63coma4mv"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=GJKdQskycEclAGPua3yXB9m_nVhxbrsVps_y-t9SXV0"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "Wayback verify for support request 741082"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=rivq8jKu6AADGtbbEzJhmOpcqq08B7QxIzXxYV8DtyU"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "rippling-domain-verification=a660f7a4ab77a3de"Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#9How well-known are those URIs though? :-\
There's an interesting list on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI#List_of_well-kn...
Re: So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI
#10How well-known are those URIs though? :-\
I spent 10 minutes searching for one in the article, in the RFC, in the wikipedia page, on google, to search for a .well-known example. Couldn't find one.
I did read one before while working with github oidc, and I did find it very useful.
What is it with technical documentations that go deep describing what it is in plenty words but refusing to give a single example? This far from the first case I've ran into either.