W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2014

Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting device model

From: eberhard speer jr. <seshat@ducis.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:05 +0300
Message-ID: <5423C261.7060106@ducis.net>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Hash: SHA1


As a contributor to the (incubating) Apache DeviceMap project,
UA-strings are pretty 'dear' to me.

While I would agree there is no immediate need for new or extra
structures; the vendors just applying the existing 'standards' and not
abusing the UA-string for 'marketing' purposes, would go a long way.

An ideal UA-string would, as Silvia Pfeiffer pointed out, contain :
OS, Browser and Rending Engine, with version numbers. In the case of a
'device' [a pretty fluid concept] a deviceId [hopefully related to an
UAProfile] should also be present.

It seems to me that thanks to HTML 5 and all the nifty frameworks
out-there most 'device detecting' these days is mainly for the purpose
of analyses and I think this is the main reason for Marketing Man to
get involved and fiddle with the "truthiness" of the UA-string and
sometimes even values reported by the navigator object itself.

If there's anything upsetting us UA-stringers it's the cavalier
attitude towards the existing 'standards'.

My 2c.

eberhard speer jr.

PS : Please send me ua-strings...

On 24/09/2014 19:42, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2014 3:51 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2014 20:40, "James Graham" <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On 24/09/14 02:54, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>> In the meantime, I'd like to add a property to
>>>> window.navigator to enable websites to get the same
>>>> information from there as is already available in the UA
>>>> string. That would at least help with the parsing problem.
>>>> And if means that we could more quickly move the device model
>>>> out of the UA string, then it also helps with the UA-string
>>>> keying thing.
>>> It's not entirely clear this won't just leave us with the
>>> device string in two places, and unable to remove either of
>>> them. Do we have any evidence that the sites using UA detection
>>> will all change their code in relatively short order, or become
>>> unimportant enough that we are able to break them?
>> Why don't we provide a better structure and not just a random
>> string. For example: deviceID, browserID, renderingEngineVersion
>> ... Not sure what
> else
>> would be useful to group actions that the developer needs to
>> take. Haven't looked in detail.
> I'm supportive of exposing any information that we are already
> exposing through the UA string.
> But most of it already is. Through various other properties on the 
> navigator object.
> / Jonas

Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2014 07:21:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:23 UTC