Re: Navigator standard change proposal

On 2/13/14 6:09 AM, Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:
> Please give me an example, but one where the problem is not caused by a
> bad developer.

I'm sorry, but this looks to me like a textbook example of 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

> How does keeping the Navigator object artificially wrong keep many sites
> on the web from breaking?

Because many sites make assumptions that are bogus about UAs.  This 
includes old sites, modern sites, sites created by "bad developers", 
sites developed by "good developers" that missed that they were making 
an assumption, sites created by Mom&Pop shops and sites created by 
Google.  Bogus assumptions are all over websites.

> 2)Preventing bad developers from making mistakes is noble and fine but
> ONLY when it does not affect all the other good programmers in a
> negative way.

What you're claiming here is that arbitrary harm to one group (users) is 
acceptable to prevent any measurable harm at all to another group ("good 
programmers").

This is an untenable moral position in all cases.  Doubly so considering 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies

Now I agree with you that sometimes UA detection is in fact required for 
various reasons.  These are very rare cases, fortunately, and I think 
it's acceptable for those cases to require a bit more work.  The problem 
is that if UA detection is easy then it's the _first_ tool people turn 
to, not the _last_ one as it should be.  And having it be the first tool 
is what causes most of the grief with it.

-Boris

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 15:20:08 UTC