Talk:Well-known URI

Non encyclopedic style
This page is written in a casual style that does not fit Wikipedia. Ironically, a "too technical" banner was put on top of it.

Additionally, it relies on a single, mostly unrelated citation that redirects to a broken website. --WikiMan3 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Original Research / Conflicts with IANA registry
This page seems problematic; it essentially duplicates the IANA well-known URI registry, thereby both introducing opportunities for errors/mismatches, and subsuming the function of the public registry. Essentially it's an example of wikipedia becoming a primary resource, rather than relying on established authoritative ones.

In short, it seems like original research; even though the individual entries have references, the list of what's considered a well-known URI is governed by the registry, not what wikipedia users think. I think it would be better to have a shot entry describing what a well-known URI is, and linking to the registry.

What do folks think?

Full disclosure: I'm the expert for the IANA well-known URI registry, and author of the well-known URI specification.

--mnot (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * While this article does take most of its content from the IANA list, there are also a number of rows that are not on that list, but which are still "/.well-known/ services offered by webservers" – for example, the Apple items are not standardized, but I'd say they still qualify for inclusion in this wikipedia article. Forresthopkinsa (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)