W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Navigator standard change proposal

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:24:14 +0100
Message-ID: <52FBAE3E.3030105@gmx.de>
To: Predrag Stojadinovic <predrags@nvidia.com>, Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2014-02-12 18:06, Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:
> - So, it is up to the standard to prevent the users from misusing it? As
 > ...

Exactly. If a feature is going to be misused then of course it makes 
sense to abandon/deprecate it.

> - My only “beef” is with the Navigator object standard errors. My other
> “beef” was with a Microfost employee coming into this discussion to
> promote his browsers agenda, instead of objectively addressing the
> issue. Either way, this is going off on a tangent…
> ...

Indeed. Employees of browser developers participating is a good thing, 
and of course they are supposed to argue what's right for their 
*product*. We want that feedback.

> And as above with [1], the [2] simply proves my point: UA sniffing is wrong.

It is. But sniffing the same thing from somewhere else is only 
marginally better.

> And why did UA sniffing come about? Because the appName and appVersion
> were poorly defined and thus unusable.
> ...

No, because people either couldn't use feature detection or did not 
understand it.

> ...
> So, the question is, should the Navigator object be properly defined to
> eliminate the need for UA sniffing or not?

No, it should not.

> ...
> But the feature detection issue is a Red herring here.
>
> The feature detection is not the issue, the issue is the Navigator
> object, it’s purpose and definition.
>
> The fact remains that many developers simply want to know the browser &
> version information and they should be allowed to know it, no matter how
> they want to use it, no matter what they want to use it for.
>
> This is not and should not be our concern here.
> ...

I note that there is disagreement about that.

> ...
> Poorly coded sites?
> You do realize that there are issues with browsers that are simply not
> detectable with feature detection?
>
> For example, the handling of the hash url redirect is one of them.
> ...

The right way to address these kinds of problems is to file bugs and get 
the browsers fixed.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 17:24:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:37 UTC