Closed dickhardt closed 2 years ago
Didn't we agree last time we chatted about this that (a) the well-known
spec isn't opinionated about this and (b) we have a preference towards using file extension names so that developers get the benefit of servers (e.g. AWS) setting mime types (e.g. text/json) based on extensions (e.g. .json)?
FWIW, one canonical example is assetlinks.json
.
I don't feel strongly about this, so happy to go either way, but I thought we had arrived at a similar conclusion here. Did I maybe misunderstood it?
That was what we discussed, and my AI was to go research what the specs said -- which indicated that no extension was what was common per my post here, and email I sent you (and just resent). Sorry about any confusion.
As discussed f2f, agreed on not using the file extension suffix to optimize for consistency.
I see that there are still references to the metadata file having a .json extension. Almost all the entries in the .well-known IANA registry have no extension
The one that has a
json
extension,host-meta.json
is an alias forhost-meta