Had a closer look at this with the help of your links from msg#27. With both foo.css.gz and foo.css.br present in a directory, .gz and .br respectively mapping to gzip and br encoding (and .br to the breton language too), as Kevin wrote the request fails:
HEAD /foo.css HTTP/1.1
Accept: */*
Accept-Encoding: br
Accept-Language: en
HTTP/1.1 406 Not Acceptable
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 03:06:33 GMT
Server: Apache/2.4.46 (Debian)
Alternates: {"foo.css.br" 1 {type text/css} {language br} {encoding br}
{length 3}}, {"foo.css.gz" 1 {type text/css} {encoding gzip} {length 32}}
Vary: negotiate,accept-language,accept-encoding
TCN: list
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
However I still don't understand why this is a blocker. With the
MultiViews method one accepts to use ‘RemoveType .gz’, why is it not OK
to use ‘RemoveLanguage .br’?
Also, the MultiViews method won't work with /usr/share/javascript/jquery
anyway because jquery.min.js exists, so apache2 won't honor Content-
{Language,Encoding} negotiation and serve that file instead (ie never
pick the compress files from the file system), right?
The mod_brotli configuration snippet you linked to in #972632 works well
on the other hand. Using mod_rewrite one can emulate negotiation and
point the HTTPd to the uncompressed / gzipped / brotli-compressed file
depending on the value of the ‘Accept-Encoding’ header. When using .br
suffixes the file is served with ‘Content-Language: br’ header, which I
guess is why you changed the extension? IMHO adding ‘RemoveLanguage
.br’ in the <FilesMatch/> of a system-provided snippet would be an OK
workaround, but whatever, I guess using .brotli suffixes for apache2 is
fine too :-)
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 23:32:29 +0100, Guilhem Moulin wrote:
> Keeping the above snippet, would apache complain about the mere presence
> of a jquery.min.js.br file alongside the jquery.min.js.brotli?
Given Content-{Language,Encoding,Type,…} is unusable here (because the
uncompressed file is present as well), I was unable to find any downside
of doing that (aside from the fact that symlink resolution now needs to
be enabled).
> If not, then how about shipping both?
:-]
--
Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
