Re: Browsing the Web with a non-existing User-Agent

If you don't supply a User-Agent at all a lot of sites break, according 
to some stuff I did a while ago.

But yes, this is at the heart of what we are trying to establish. If, as 
a Content Provider, you do differentiate on User Agent and not Accept 
then that's interesting and that's what we are in the game to promote, I 
think. I'm sorry that it's not more prevalent in your sample, Francois.

Jo

On 01/10/2008 15:53, Francois Daoust wrote:
> 
> I've been masquerading my User-Agent header lately to browse the Web, 
> using a non-existing User-Agent with no link whatsoever to any existing 
> one.
> 
> I was expecting to see things break one way or the other, but the thing 
> is I had no real problem so far.
> I see a few sites that return an "application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml" 
> content-type that is not recognized by my browser, but this typically is 
> an indication that they have a mobile-optimized version, so not what I 
> would consider to be a big problem.
> 
> So I'm wondering. Can anyone point out a few web sites that returns a 
> rejected response when queried with a "weird" User-Agent? (either 
> through a 406 status, or through a 200 status code with a "sorry" 
> message) I suppose I'm only browsing modern Web sites, not "legacy" ones.
> 
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 19:11:09 UTC