I generally think of a split UA as being one where both sides are controlled by the software vendor. E.g., Amazon sells you the Kindle Fire and they also run the server side. That's different from having the enterprise impose a proxy on a piece of software which someone else wrote and deployed. -Ekr On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Diego R. Lopez <diego@tid.es> wrote: > Would not any proxy fall in this split UA category then? What > differentiates a proxy from a split UA? > > On 20 Jun 2014, at 11:59 , Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 20 June 2014 08:06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Finally, there are cases where part of the UA functionality is moved > into > >> the network, such as in Opera mini - do we consider that as "proxying" > as > >> well (methinks yes, because it shares most of the considerations of > >> classical proxies). > > > > I don't tend to think of this as a proxy at all. Split UA is the term > > I've used casually with respect to Opera mini, Silk and others. > > Really, this is just a software deployment choice. > > > > > -- > "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" > > Dr Diego R. Lopez > Telefonica I+D > http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ > > e-mail: diego@tid.es > Tel: +34 913 129 041 > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > ----------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace > situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx >
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 18:38:16 UTC