[Pkg-javascript-devel] Debian javascript URLs

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On 08/15/2013 05:53 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:> Quoting Ken Dreyer 
(2013-08-14 18:40:33)
 >> Fedora packager here (don't shoot! :)
 >
 > Welcome!!
 >
 >
 >> Fedora is currently planning some Javascript guidelines[0], and the
 >> subject of Debian compatibility came up during the discussion.
 >
 > Cool that you "reach across"!
 >
 >
 >> Specifically, we're trying to decide how best to serve the Javascript
 >> libraries out to the web.
 >>
 >> I saw that the Debian "javascripts-common" package contains an Apache
 >> alias for "/javascript". How has this been working for you? In light
 >> of [2], will this URL scheme be changing sometime soon? If so, what is
 >> the future URL going to be?
 >>
 >> We were thinking of implementing something like
 >> "_sysassets/javascript", and I thought it might be nice to check with
 >> you guys to see what the future holds for Debian in this area.
 >
 > Nothing is decided in Debian, as that bug (and also, arguably to a
 > lesser degree since ligttpd is less popular, also bug#474913) reflects.

FWIW, we intend to shoot for parity among the HTTP daemons right from 
the get go with the new guidelines in Fedora.

 > Our current /javascript looks pretty, is relatively short, but risk
 > clash with paths of various webapp projects.

That's a bit of an understatement; /javascript is probably second only 
to /js in real world use.  ;-)

 > Your /_sysassets/javascript is less pretty, not as short, but less
 > likely to clash.

And has that lovely "horse designed by committee" feel.  See my other 
mail for a more reasonable proposal.

 > My proposed /usr/share/javascript is equally ugly, slightly longer, also
 > less likely to clash, and additionally is usable offline.
 >
 > What I suggest is that Debian and Fedora (and other distros) do _not_
 > coordinate on a unified path to use, but mirror in html the filesystem
 > path (relative from the root of the local system) where the files are
 > actually stored - so as to support offline use (where applicable).

I get what your going for here, but if we decided to go this route, 
within hours there would be a Slashdot article with the headline:

Debian and Fedora Agree to Share /usr On the Web By Default

You may think I'm joking, but I'm not.

I like the idea of making http://fooserver/usr/share/javascript/ work so 
offline content can be shared online with no difficulty, but I don't see 
the need to make that the primarily advertised entrypoint.  There's lots 
of stuff that is only ever going to with with HTTP daemons, and we 
should make it easier on them.

Part of what we're competing with is evil CDNs where you can just 
copy-and-paste a blurb and get your JS (and let some evil empire track 
your users) instantly.  Our only chance to compete is if we make it dead 
simple for people to take advantage of a better alternative.  A big part 
of that is simply "URLs that don't suck to type".  ;-)

 > It might make sense to then coordinate on a unified path for _storing_
 > javascript files (and perhaps also on naming of (non-)uglified flavors,
 > JS-specific CSS and other files.  But such coordination makes best sense
 > for me to do in the File Hierarchy Standard.

Unforunately the last attempt to update the FHS seems to have died 
without even a bang.  :-(

We seem to at least both be happy with /usr/share/javascript.  Where 
blue-ribbon committees fail we can succeed with just a few simple 
mailing list discussions and good old-fashioned common sense.  ;-)

-T.C.