On 31/05/2019 22:29, Thanh Ha wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 17:05, Robert Varga <nite@...
> <mailto:nite@...>> wrote:
>
>     Also, would it make sense to compress them with 'xz -T 0 -0'?
>
>
> Hi Robert,

Hello Thanh,

>
> The reason we didn't go with xz compression in the past (we looked into
> it) is because you cannot open a xz file natively in the browser. It's
> nice especially for folks who spend a lot of time looking at logs to be
> able to navigate to a log file on the server and click and have it
> immediately open. If we compressed with xz this would become an
> inconvenient 3 step process where you have to first download, then
> decompress, then open.

Ah yes, I did not read up on the web-side of the topic. This is a
concern critically important for me.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559 offers some insight,
eventually leading to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7932


> With that consideration I think staying on gz compression would be best
> until xz files can be opened directly from browser like we can with gz.

I just checked, FF67 does not recognize .xz, but it does send:

Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br

which leads me to https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5420797577396224
and hence -- can we reasonably switch to Brotli?