Antoine Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > I am currently working on the web application enabling to browse the > Software Heritage archive (https://archive.softwareheritage.org).
Looks great! I was also very pleased to found out, that it’s functional without any client scripts (well, much more functional than Gitlab, at least :-). > I wanted to add LibreJS compliance for this web application but as I > am using webpack to generate the JavaScript assets, I had a doubt whether > it was feasible or not. Imho, that is quite feasible for the aims of propaganda, but for practical freedom it would better have _working_ sourcemaps first. They seem to be there, but the declaration is nonstandard (just ‘webapp.1328be1766de4e979da7.js.map’ instead of ‘sourceMappingURL=webapp.1328be1766de4e979da7.js.map’), thus is not recognized by Firefox. (By the way, it would be nice to have them for minified stylesheets too.) > So I have implemented a webpack plugin processing the statistics available > after the whole webpack compilation...: > > https://forge.softwareheritage.org/source/swh-web/browse/master/swh/web/assets/config/webpack-plugins/generate-weblabels-webpack-plugin/ That’s by all means cool, but as a mere passerby, I am convinced, that LibreJS have to make use of sourcemaps on its own, without mandating use of another protocol. > When reading the current LibreJS documentation, Section 7.1.1 "Specifying > multiple license files for a single JavaScript file" rings a bell to me... > However, I have the feeling that LibreJS specifications should better handle > the "multiple licenses for a single JavaScript file" case... > For instance, if a compatible license... > Another issue... > ... > What do you think of the proposed approach? I am not sure, if any of LibreJS developers actually read this (user’s) list. It might make sense to crosspost to <[email protected]>.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
