Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Partial freezing of the User-Agent string (#467)

As @jyasskin pointed out, the examples there should clarify what we had in mind on that front

As for the Zamzung Zinternet case, I'd expect it to send out a set that looks something like `Sec-CH-UA: "Chrome"; v="70", "Chromium"; v="70", "Zamzung Zinternet"; v="10"`.
That would enable sites that haven't bothered testing on it to consider it the same as they consider other Chromium browsers, enable sites that want to target it specifically, and will enable analytics (that are aware of it) to understand what specific browsers those users are coming from.

Does that help alleviate your concerns?

Also, note that there's a discussion on maybe putting more emphasis on the engine vs. the UA brand: https://github.com/WICG/ua-client-hints/issues/52

To me, the Zamzung Zinternet case sounds like a good example in which we should prefer the current spec, over switching over to sending only the engine by default.





> Please note, the TAG's [ethical web principles](https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/#multi) argues that there is an inherent value of having multiple browsers. We should not be introducing a change the web platform that could result in making browser diversity less apparent / less measurable, as this could negatively impact browser diversity.

Beyond the privacy benefits of this change, it has an explicit goal of discouraging unreliable UA sniffing, as well as problematic UA sniffing patterns such as allow and block lists. So its intent is to discourage patterns that harm browser diversity. 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/467#issuecomment-581066886