- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:35 +0200
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Hi Frank, all. On 11-Jun-08, at 9:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> I therefore suggest implementing: >> * a user-agent parameter for the check script >> * values can be: >> - auto (equivalent to none) -> the usual validator UA applies >> - forward (and maybe "referer" too?) -> will forward the UA string >> as received by the validator. Modulo some sanitizing? >> - mobileok -> will output the UA as defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/mobileOK-basic10-tests/#http_request >> - any other string -> sanitize? and use as UA HTTP header. > > Sounds good, I hope "forward" covers "no UA" and "no referer". > Maybe you need to map an empty "other string" to "no UA". There are a couple of interesting thoughts here. First, I admit I hadn't thought much about "no UA". To me it is usually not a good idea to not have a UA header at all - that's the prerogative of broken bots - should we really have that? This makes me think maybe when a UA is requested we should use that custom of adding a (Compatible; W3C Markup Validator <version)) ? Not sure I understood what you meant be “no referer”. I may have been confusing in my original message - the scope of this discussion is only the User-Agent header, and I was thinking of using "referer" as a value that would trigger forwarding the User-Agent string. >> not add any graphical UI. > > Difficult question. It might be interesting to see if the UA > has any desired or dubious effect, but web masters might hate > it when their activities can be tracked with the validator ;-) True. Let's start with a non-GUI solution and see if a demand for it exists. Thank you. -- olivier
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 16:18:44 UTC