- From: Denis A. Doroshenko <d.doroshenko@omnitel.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:11:51 +0200
- To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
hello, i have one simple question: why user-agent header isn't standardized to return much more useful information that it does today? it says completely nothing about what is supported at client side, and we see so many javascripts on the net, that perform sily detection of browser and guess what that browser can. it would be much more useable to have standardized header (why not User-Agent?) in a form like: User-Agent: <user_agent_description> <header_separator> <supported_features_list> where (mix of regex and C style declarations) <user_agent_description> -- <any_char> * <header_separator> -- "::" <supported_features_list> -- <feature> [<feature_separator> <feature> \ [<feature_separator> <feature> [...]]] <feature> -- <feature_name>[<info_separator> <additional_info>] <feature_name> -- <char> + <info_separator> -- '/' <additional_info> -- <char> + <feature_separator> -- ',' <any_char> -- ' ' .. '\x7f' <char> -- '!' .. '\x7f' # no space that would return for example User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (X11; U; OpenBSD 2.6 i386; Nav) :: HTML/4.0,JavaScript/1.2,Java/1.2.2,Frames,DHTML,Stylesheets (well, don't really pay attention to the numbers and items :-) instead of: User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (X11; U; OpenBSD 2.6 i386; Nav) the reason is: the first header says me everything about what the browser supports, and the second gives nothing. it also seems reasonable to me to add this information to User-Agent header, becasue it lists features of the borwser. however, it would be anything bad if it would be User-Agent-Supports or something like that. Thank you in advance!.. -- Denis A. Doroshenko Omnitel Ltd., Sevcenkos 25, Vilnius 2600, Lithuania mailto:d.doroshenko@omnitel.net
Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 23:16:50 UTC