W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:33:50 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Message-ID: <1645267.aCDlEb6HqM@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
No way!! W3C has a policy that says: Browser sniffing is evil. There 
is one Web after all! (I know not even W3C is fully consistent on 
this). But rejecting a browser for being from a certain vendor is 
evil. I'm using minority browsers and have to regularly fake user 
agent strings just because of stupid web-site implementations. 
Please please don't. 

And if we have reasons to reject Shane, you're going down a very 
dangerous path: If you need a reason to communicate back, the next 
step will be to ask you that you can only reject for those reasons. 

I still believe that as a response to some browser sending DNT:1 by 
default, services can trigger an exception call by default. And then 
people will see the dispute :)

For the rest, I agree with David and have my WE now.

Rigo

On Friday 08 June 2012 11:32:02 David Singer wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > 
> >
> > I agree with everything except remaining silent on uncompliant
> > behavior and how to appropriately notify a user that their UA
> > signal is non-compliant, won't be honored, and to provide
> > them with meaningful choices from that point.
> so, you'd like an explicit 'because' clause?
>      - for some other reason that is explained in more detail at
> the following URL
> 
> and allow this 'for more info' URL (if its not already in the
> header and well-known resource)?
> 
> That's fine by me.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 19:34:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC