W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Minimizing/avoiding User-Agent, was: SPDY Header Frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:18:14 +0000
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
cc: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <55005.1342556294@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABP7RbftZjB3dKTroubA1xGtrGX5dh9+=Y1T-s=s72OcMKcYjQ@mail.gmail.com>
, James M Snell writes:

>redefine User-Agent to limit it to a single product token and version, and
>define a new Capabilities header whose value is a list of meaningful tokens
>that identify stuff the user-agent is able to support.
>
>  User-Agent: Foo/1.0
>  Capabilities: u, mobile, something-else

Isn't that just moving the problem to a different header ?

I guess making the Capabilities a Registry could stem the tide
a bit, but do we (in this WG) even have a clue about what
capabilities make sense for the initial set ?

I guess the WURFL database can be used for a clue about what
capabilities would be interesting, but without any slight or malice
intended, it seems slightly overengineered, in that good old german
fashion we all love in cars and cameras.

Is that a task we could fork out to another more web-app centric
WG or maybe W3c ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 20:18:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 July 2012 20:18:44 GMT