W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [XHR] Setting the User-Agent header

From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:04:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGrgetHA8y5dKUHpoX0jpN8iRCYxYa6F-uYuq4XiYfMi_1xeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 06:03 , Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> That's unfortunate, because part of the intent of the UA header is to
>> identify the software making the request, for debugging / tracing purposes.
>>
>> Given that lots of libraries generate XHR requests, it would be natural
>> for them to identify themselves in UA, by appending a token to the browser's
>> UA (the header is a list of product tokens).  As it is, they have to use a
>> separate header.
>
>
> Do you have a use case that does not involve the vanity of the library's
> authors? :)
>

I'm not sure how this constitutes vanity, do you mean because it would
piggyback the app name into a prominent header? The same reasoning
could be regarded against having a protected UA header as a means of
enforcing usage stats.

Is there supposed to be a security or privacy threat here?

If an app overrides the UA header that would seem to be their own
prerogative based on the request they deem to initiate.

The use case for overriding the UA header is that, in a world of
browser sniffing services, if a service does change their output based
on UA header the only way to ever access such content is by
replicating the exact environment, potentially in hardware and
software. This functionality is useful in providing administrative
access for online development, debugging and testing.

Thanks,
Cameron Jones
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:05:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT