So You Want to Define a Well-Known URI

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/

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.

"This Web site requires a more modern browser to operate securely; please upgrade your browser."

Alternative, no SNI required

https://web.archive.org/web/20260619061625if_/https://mnot.n...

The consideration about having more than one of them on a domain seems like something that's often overlooked.

.well-known started tidy and quietly became the junk drawer of the web root. security.txt, ACME, app-site-association, and counting.

Title says uri but post only about urls, a type of uri

Why 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.

How well-known are those URIs though? :-\

I wish we had one for navigation layout of a site so browser chrome could render that in a consistent way. It would also be a boon for a11y.

I'm not sure I like `https://domain.com/.well-known/robots.txt` any better frankly

[flagged]