trust.txt

[scodtt]

Please confirm that:

• [x] You have read and understood the requirements for registration.
• [x] You have checked the registry and found no current value that meets your needs.
• [x] Your specification reference URL is stable; ideally, managed by a widely-recognised standards development organisation (e.g., published as an RFC). Otherwise, please give additional information below.

If so, please provide the details of your request below.

Enter the details of the link relation type below:

• URI suffix: trust.txt
• Change controller: JournalList.net, a 501(c)6 non-profit member-owned cooperative.
• Specification document(s): https://journallist.net/reference-document-for-trust-txt-specifications

Any additional information (this will not be included in the registry)?

[mnot]

Your specification uses /trust.txt in the root of the path, which is exactly what well-known URIs are defined to avoid. This is bad practice, for the reasons listed in the RFC.

If you intend to update the specification to use /.well-known/trust.txt, please say so.

[scodtt]

I intend to use both.

I am trying to convince thousands of time-constrained publishers to do this, so I need to remove any barriers to entry that I can. Nearly all of them use robots.txt and ads.txt, so this is something that they are familiar with. The WordPress plugin is built, and associations have started adopting and using this.

That said, I want to use /.well-known/trust.txt in addition to honor what you are doing here, and by working with you I think we can make it easy for publishers to do both. And then with luck we can convince them to start using other /.well-known/ paths moving forward. I think this could be a way to raise awareness of this path convention and the spirit of the RFC.

[mnot]

OK. I'm flipping this to 'waiting for stable reference' until the specification is updated.

[brownwolf1355]

Scott asked that I let you know that the trust.txt specification has been stable since August, 2021.