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
signature.asc
Description: signature
-- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list Pkg-javascript-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
