- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:59:07 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20.09.2010 11:27, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 20/09/2010, at 7:24 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> Likewise, implementations are encouraged not to use the product tokens of other implementations in order to declare compatibility with them, as this circumvents the purpose of the field. >> >> Although noble, many implementations will ignore this advice. I can >> tell you that there are several folks in the Chromium project that are >> adamant about fixing the User-Agent mess, but they're crushed by the >> compatibility requirements. In particular, including the token >> "Safari" in Chrome's User-Agent string is massively important to >> making the browser actually work in the real world. > > Yes, I think that's probably the most tenuous part of the proposal -- and one reason why it's just "encouraged." > ... I think it's good advice, so I'd be in favor of leaving it in. Best regards, julian
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 09:59:46 UTC