Should Endpoint Discovery documentation match Webmention spec?
Opened this issue · 1 comments
Hello!
In a conversation in IndieWeb IRC (in the dev channel) regarding the differences between the Webmention spec's endpoint discovery algorithm and the Micropub spec's endpoint discovery algorithm, @sknebel noted:
in practice, those are identical, the micropub one is just documented a lot less detailed
I tend to agree that that should be the case. I don't have the historical context for why the two specs might differ as written (vs. how implementors are implementing…) so I can't comment on that.
But… given the generalized nature of "endpoint discovery" and the common means by which website's supply this information (e.g. a <link> element, a Link HTTP header, an <a> element) it may be a good idea to bring the various specs into alignment.
So, should this section of the Micropub spec be updated to match Webmention's endpoint discovery documentation?
I think it should! I currently do this with my personal site via Koype. This is largely in the event that a consuming client wanted to opt for HEAD requests before making a full-on GET (expensive for the server; cheap for clients).
(Originally published at: https://v2.jacky.wtf/post/ffb77ba1-5397-4f60-bb0f-65f302ed10c2)