- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:31:59 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15380 --- Comment #16 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2012-02-02 10:31:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > It has nothing to do with HTML or browsers. There are more clients on the Web > > than browsers, you know. For example, wget has a User-Agent string, msnbot has > > a User-Agent string, etc. > > Yes, I happen to know that. > > My understanding was that the intent was to harmonize UA strings for browsers. > > Who cares what the UA string for "wget" is? The copy of wget that I use (http://www.hexcat.com/deepvacuum/) defaults to identify itself as Safari … (Can be disabled in the preferences.) Intent was that a subset format should be defined - a harmonization around something that does not create problems. Clearly, to the extent that they are affected, non-browsers could also benefit from these things. E.g. I consider that the googleboot wants to catch "the Web" as she is seen by users? And - btw - the google bot UA string *does* cause pages to be served with the wrong MIME type - same as happens with Opera. If "browsers" means "the browsers based on the 4-5 big GUI vendors", then they are not the only ones that are affected: E.g. according to my tests, text browsers are affected by the same thing that affects Opera. When a browser vendor - Opera - changes how their browsers handle application/xml+xhtml because of a UA string issue, then I think that the issue is related to (X)HTML5. Clearly, the HTML spec would want to say something about that? Hm ... I can see that what I said about text browsers and google bot, could justify that the issue should be worked out in HTTP ... ? Julian, is there no room for e.g. adding a "recommended subset" in the HTTP spec? -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 10:32:01 UTC