- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:56:32 +0000
- To: Peter Grucza <pgrucza@gmail.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
> From: Peter Grucza [mailto:pgrucza@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:48 AM > > On 11/02/2014 5:47 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > > > If anything, I'd propose that those properties be explicitly > > marked as deprecated from the spec itself, with a note that user > > agents may still expose them, with whatever string they deem > > necessary, due to the reliance of legacy scripts in the wild on > > these. > > I would support a depreciation notice on navigator.appName and > navigator.appVersion with a note as suggested by Patrick. > > Also, I'm wondering if the following text under 6.6.1.1 Client > identification should also be updated also. Currently the text > seems to indicate that the properties under discussion can be > used to create work around solutions. Should this be removed or > changed? > > "In certain cases, despite the best efforts of the entire > industry, Web browsers have bugs and limitations that Web > authors are forced to work around. > This section defines a collection of attributes that can be used > to determine, from script, the kind of user agent in use, in > order to work around these issues. > Client detection should always be limited to detecting known > current versions; future versions and unknown versions should > always be assumed to be fully compliant." > - from Editor's Draft > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single- > page.html#dom-navigator > > Filing a bug would be a next step if others agree, > Thoughts/Comments Appreciated I would support deprecation as well updated note text. May be worth opening a bug just to get it in the queue and available for wider review.
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 15:57:10 UTC