31–40 of 105 posts
How 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.
I 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! [1] https://llmstxt.org/
LLMs.txt is also nonsense since it isn't adopted by any of the major AI players.
And anything else that might tell them not to access something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs.txt is also nonsense since it isn't adopted by any of the major AI players.
Google has recently added `llms.txt` to Chrome's Lighthouse check for agentic browsing ( https://searchengineland.com/google-llms-txt-chrome-lighthou... ), so adoption may be coming. Admittedly, I put more faith in that I copied from Gwern.net. This convention is discoverable (just read the HTML) and naturally adapts to any website size and structure. I have created an `llms.txt` for my website anyhow. I use a fixed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, that it is part of OIDC provider discovery spec explains a lot. That said, I still find it very bizzare that it's so hard to find a tangible example to see how it is in practice. The rfc has none. Another spec including the use of it has none. In the end only completed service provider/implementers show it. Before programmatic access happens, it needs to be written by a human. Yet the whole thing feels so…
What RFC? The oidc discovery spec has an example, and for change-password it’s just a redirect. RFC 8615 is about the existence and management of the .well-know namespace, so examples don’t really make sense.
It's a JSON array of public keys which you can use to validate a JWT which is what an OIDC token is.
Making it an array means you can rotate keys whenever but the validator is typically caching the public keys.
https://www.hanko.io/blog/understanding-jwks
Actually... found it https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749
And here's a PHP implementation that is perfect. https://github.com/thephpleague/oauth2-client
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Domain-verifications" is an invitation for everyone else that might need it to use the same standard and convention. "Discord-domain-verification" is not, it's what feels like polluting the global namespace with the company name that might cease to exist in a few years. At the very least, it should be "domain-verification-discord", "-google" and so on. Maybe even "-com.discord", "-com.google"? And the first part cle…
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Domain-verifications" is an invitation for everyone else that might need it to use the same standard and convention. "Discord-domain-verification" is not, it's what feels like polluting the global namespace with the company name that might cease to exist in a few years. At the very least, it should be "domain-verification-discord", "-google" and so on. Maybe even "-com.discord", "-com.google"? And the first part cle…
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has recently added `llms.txt` to Chrome's Lighthouse check for agentic browsing ( https://searchengineland.com/google-llms-txt-chrome-lighthou... ), so adoption may be coming. Admittedly, I put more faith in that I copied from Gwern.net. This convention is discoverable (just read the HTML) and naturally adapts to any website size and structure. I have created an `llms.txt` for my website anyhow. I use a fixed…
Giving a markdown version of a page seems like an interesting choice instead of just embedding a schema marked up one
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Domain-verifications" is an invitation for everyone else that might need it to use the same standard and convention. "Discord-domain-verification" is not, it's what feels like polluting the global namespace with the company name that might cease to exist in a few years. At the very least, it should be "domain-verification-discord", "-google" and so on. Maybe even "-com.discord", "-com.google"? And the first part cle…
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Giving a markdown version of a page seems like an interesting choice instead of just embedding a schema marked up one
Every page on code.claude.com has a markdown version available by just appending ".md", and Claude Code knows about it. E.g: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview and https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview.md
No, in fact I don't. But this post wouldn't be of any help anyway. It feels like it's about nothing, there is no substance, just stating some obvious facts. Without examples that lead to some real recommendations, this whole expertise claimed by the author is of no use.
The point of the post was that you need to add robots.txt (or similar) because it's a thing, and also tell us where they are.
Which bots will then ignore.