I actually thought about this a couple of weeks back that for agents - going backwards actually makes sites more capable - WAP would even be more appropriate. The ultimate irony though is that making websites MORE accessible makes them more agent friendly - the last decade of SPAs is what makes things harder.

Ironic how this "Website spec" website doesn't have caching

.well-known/security is listed as a prominent example, but is not in the well-known category.

What a great resource. As someone who’s been making websites for 30 years, it’s amazing to still be picking up some of the basics. Though to be fair many of these didn’t exist back then.

I’ll be using this to add some extra tags to my pages.

It looks like there are some features noted as “required” that are actually required by the spec (e.g. a title tag), and others that are required by opinion (e.g. https) so there’s an element^ of pragmatic best practice being recommended.

I find it curious that setting a colour hint for the browser is recommended. I’m one for letting the browser look as vanilla as possible and letting my pages do the talking.

^Pun not intended, blink and you’ll miss it

I've seen Google Webmaster Tools misidentify a page as a "Soft 404" page before.

Why include the LLMs.txt?

Let’s look at the Git history: https://github.com/jdevalk/specification.website/commits/mai...

Yeah, mostly slop. I wonder why the slop slingers never disable Claude's self-attribution, and are too lazy to commit themselves, are they proud that they're delegating everything to a slop machine?

Nearly 80% of the commentators who have mentioned slop appear to be people who have the same relationship with the the word "slop" that Vizzini had with "inconceivable" [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

Will this make my website good though?