- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:38:59 +0200
- To: Paul Wise <pabs3@bonedaddy.net>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 19.08.2010 13:31, Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > I found out about httpbis and the first thing I thought of was my hatred > of the User-Agent header. Would it be possible to make it illegal in > HTTP/1.2 so that there are less stupid websites? To see just how much Clarifying: we aren't defining HTTP/1.2. > FAIL User-Agent has created, check out some of these strings: > > http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/browser_ids.htm#chrome > http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/browser_ids.htm#epiphany > http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/browser_ids.htm#gnuzilla > http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/browser_ids.htm#galeon > http://www.zytrax.com/tech/web/browser_ids.htm#mozilla > > Examples of stupid websites: > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=592665 > http://blog.kov.eti.br/?p=119 > http://glandium.org/blog/?p=145 > http://home.kairo.at/blog/2007-06/the_fight_for_the_suckiest_ua_string > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385999 > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384721 > http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/epiphany/branches/gnome-2-18/data/weasel-ua-pref.js.in?view=markup&pathrev=7101 I agree that many uses of U-A are bad. That doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Independently of that, what *effect* do you think making it "illegal" has? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 12:39:42 UTC