Re: ACTION-767: Confirm the EXACT wording of the proposed change to the user agent header on list

My understanding of the discussion was that we started from that and 
then went on to what is discussed below - which I believe is what is 
said in the resolution. I prefer what we have now, as it seems, do you.

I think it better not to specify the "string" it starts with because 
that in fact implies something about the spaces and other theoretically 
insignificant things to my mind.

Jo

On 05/06/2008 17:11, Francois Daoust wrote:
> Jo Rabin wrote:
> [...]
>> Proposed Text:
>>
>> Include a User-Agent header indicating the Default Delivery Context by 
>> sending a product token set to "W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0" followed by a 
>> comment set to "(see http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)". These 
>> may be followed by any number of other product tokens or comments in 
>> accordance with [HTTP] [Section 14.43, User Agent Header]. The minimal 
>> User Agent header is:
>>
>> User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)
> 
> OK, I don't mean to be picky on this, but I probably lost myself in the 
> BNG dicussion. My point is that I thought we agreed that the following 
> was valid:
> 
> User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc; my comment)
> 
> -> Based on the proposed text, it's not. Actually, I don't mind either 
> way, with a slight preference for it to be invalid anyway, but I just 
> want to make sure this is what was discussed and agreed.
> 
> It's good if it's invalid, although I don't quite see in that case why 
> we don't simply state:
> "Include a User-Agent header indicating the Default Delivery Context by 
> sending a header that starts with:
> User-Agent: W3C-mobileOK/DDC-1.0 (see 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/mobileok-ddc)"
> But that's probably not rec-friendly enough...

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 17:43:17 UTC