Re: ACTION-767: Confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list

Jo Rabin wrote:
> My understanding of the discussion was that we started from that and 
> then went on to what is discussed below - which I believe is what is 
> said in the resolution. I prefer what we have now, as it seems, do you.

Well, I prefer as well.


> 
> I think it better not to specify the "string" it starts with because 
> that in fact implies something about the spaces and other theoretically 
> insignificant things to my mind.

OK, it's just that I still don't see why we can't impose the beginning 
of the string.

Knowing that:
User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0     (see 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
(5 spaces between the product token and the comment)
... may be a valid User-Agent string (it may not, I haven't checked) 
should not prevent us from saying that, for us, it must be:
User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
... and then implementers may add whatever they want to the end of the 
string.

That being said, since the first product token is perfectly defined as 
"W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0", the proposed text is totally fine!

Francois.

> 
> Jo
> 
> On 05/06/2008 17:11, Francois Daoust wrote:
>> Jo Rabin wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Proposed Text:
>>>
>>> Include a User-Agent header indicating the Default Delivery Context 
>>> by sending a product token set to "W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0" followed by 
>>> a comment set to "(see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)". 
>>> These may be followed by any number of other product tokens or 
>>> comments in accordance with [HTTP] [Section 14.43, User Agent 
>>> Header]. The minimal User Agent header is:
>>>
>>> User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
>>
>> OK, I don't mean to be picky on this, but I probably lost myself in 
>> the BNG dicussion. My point is that I thought we agreed that the 
>> following was valid:
>>
>> User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc; my comment)
>>
>> -> Based on the proposed text, it's not. Actually, I don't mind either 
>> way, with a slight preference for it to be invalid anyway, but I just 
>> want to make sure this is what was discussed and agreed.
>>
>> It's good if it's invalid, although I don't quite see in that case why 
>> we don't simply state:
>> "Include a User-Agent header indicating the Default Delivery Context 
>> by sending a header that starts with:
>> User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)"
>> But that's probably not rec-friendly enough...
>

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 20:04:54 UTC