On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Minor comment: This copy of the text uses /assets ; the wiki page and > the proposed policy uses both /assets and /_assets ; this should be > cleared up. > > More importantly, is it OK to just take over a part of the server's > URI namespace like this? If we do so, users won't be able to remap > the directory to something else without potentially breaking > Fedora-packaged applications. Are we satisfied enough that > (presumably) /_assets will not collide with existing applications or > installations? (Yes, this is already written in the proposal. I > still thought it is worth highlighting to make absolutely sure we have > this discussion, because changing the path would be very painful with > the current proposal.) I added the underscore based on the suggestion of the httpd maintainer (in the discussion on the packaging list), who suggested "/.assets/" or "/_packaged_assets/" or so. (And sorry, I missed a couple spots when changing it.) I didn't like the latter because I would really prefer to keep it short. One of the things *I* really want from this is the ability to just type "/_assets/jquery/jquery.min.js" while developing instead of having to wget it every time or use an evil CDN that logs everything. Us programmers are lazy and shouldn't be forced to type gigantic URLs. ;-) But "_assets/" does have the potential to clash a lot too. So how about "_sysassets/"? It reinforces the point of the directory, it's still pretty short, and seems to used nowhere else [1]. Note that most web apps that ship httpd configs already claim a chunk of the URI namespace, so that part isn't anything new, and prior JavaScript proposals actually called for keeping this tradition and giving every JS library it's own directory. -T.C. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3A%22_sysassets%22 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
