[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#979996: libjs-jquery: please use the default extension for precompressed brotli files

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2021-01-12 21:50:19)
> Quoting Guilhem Moulin (2021-01-12 21:30:43)
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 20:19:18 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > The officially registered meaning for file suffix .br is the 
> > > language breton.
> > 
> > Do you have a link for this?
> 
> Sorry, I found some evidence but don't recall if it was substantion 
> and failed at locating it again now :-)

Found now what convinced me to use .brotli instead of .br: 
https://kevinlocke.name/bits/2016/01/20/serving-pre-compressed-files-with-apache-multiviews/#adding-brotli

Boils down to...

  * Apache2 already by default use ISO 639-1 suffices
    (so "just" a well-stablished default, no official standard)
  * rfc7932 refrain from recommending a suffix
    (only talks about "HTTP Content Coding Registry")


> > br is the ISO 639-1 code for the breton language but I guess that's 
> > not what you mean (application/ecmascript, text/x-perl or video/gl 
> > don't conflict with the language codes for Spanish, Polish or 
> > Galician right)?  After quick search I was unable to find an 
> > official registration for the .br file suffix.
> 
> As I recall, the "officiality" of it is tied to that ISO 639-1 and 
> some W3C definitions (but might just be recommendations, and might 
> just be Apache2 practise).

More specifically, Apache2 by default follows RFC 3066: 
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_mime.html#addlanguage

...and encourages using both language codes and media types (e.g. a 
JavaScript file pre-compressed using brotli) and handlers (e.g. 
on-the-fly request for brotli-compression when serving a JavaScript 
file), and warns about clashes between those: 
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_mime.html#multipleext


> > It appears there was some debate upstream about the default 
> > extension (.br / .bro / .brotli) [0,1] but they now settled on .br 
> > and I think it's unfortunate to choose something else, especially 
> > given this not configurable everywhere.
> 
> I remember seeing such debate - but apparently another than the 
> toothless "debate" at [0] which does not mention ISO 639-1 at all.

The debate I saw was Mozilla (referenced from above kevinlocke page): 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559#c147

...but really that discussion ended without deciding on a file 
extension, probably because Firefox does not need that at all.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-javascript-devel/attachments/20210112/8f0ecee2/attachment.sig>