- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:38:21 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15380 Summary: Define a User-Agent string format subset (liason witth HTTP people etc) Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: PC OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: bzbarsky@mit.edu, hsivonen@iki.fi, mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, julian.reschke@gmx.de, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no, annevk@opera.com, adrianba@microsoft.com, Ms2ger@gmail.com, VYV03354@nifty.ne.jp, dbaron@dbaron.org, tross@microsoft.com Depends on: 15359 PROPOSAL: * The goal of HTML5 is to create an open specification of the Web, so that a new browser vendor possibly could use the spec in order to create a new browser that would be compatible with the Web. * To that end, it has showed itself necessary to define a User-Agent string subset format, in order to keep everyone aware of the issues and problems that UAs can cause * Important goals: avoiding fingerprinting and unconscious UA sniffing * WebSites which do UA sniffing and which support HTML5, could be asked to treat any browser which uses the new format as compatible. (Example: As a frequent user of the Webkit clone iCab, I too often see messages telling me to "upgrade" my browser despite that I use a browser based on the Same Webkit clone as Safari. This happens on Facebook, Google AdWords on MobileMe etc.) A USE CASE/EXAMPLE: (1) Opera recently changed what they do with malformed XML (they started to "fall back" from XML to HTML parsing - rather than display in XML fatal errors - if the server delives the document with the HTTP Content-Type header "application/xml+xhtml") (2) However, the real issue in Opera's case, is user-agent string sniffing: ASP servers that are deployed with a list of User-Agent strings, which does not include the User-Agent string of Opera. As a result, the UAs not on the list, get the page served as 'application/xhtml+xml' rather than as 'text/html'. With the result that the text/html-authored page trigger XML fatal error. An idiot case. But Opera of course needs to handle it. (3) It is important to note that Opera's user agent string differs greatly from the strings of UAs based on Webkit, Trident and Gecko: * It doesn't include the 'Mozilla/0.0' token anywhere; * the first token differs from those of the others; * Less controversly, but still an issue: It does not include the the strings 'msie 0.0' or 'firefox/0+" or "safari/0+" anywhere. (I outlined these issues here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/0003.html.) When looking at a list of 10.000 UA strings, it becomes clear that there are many other browsers than Opera that could justify implementing the same XML error handling as Opera has implemented - as only a little above 1000 strings fullfil the requirements I listed above. See: http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/All/ FORMAT DISCUSSION: * A User-agent string format that works with ASP (and which Opera thus could have picked instead of changing how they treat XML - except that ASP of course is not the only thing to care for): "Nubrowser/0 (Boilerplate: Mozilla/0.0/BOMSIE 0.0)" Explanations: - '0' could be any integer between 0 and 9 - ASP needs to see 'Mozilla/0.0' somewhere - The string 'BOMSIE' works because it encompasses 'MSIE'. - Of course, one could make up many other acronyms, such as "UAMSIE": "User Agent Management Science and Industrial Engineering" - Of course, many other acronyms would be posssible, e.g: "WebSafari/0" and "WebFirefox/0" * While testing the above string, I learned that Facebook needs to see "KnownBrowser/5.0" as the first string. (Aparently, Opera made it to that list.) REFERENCES: * The UA string format is defined in HTTP: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945#section-10.15 -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 2 January 2012 12:20:37 UTC