Re: Proposal of @ua

The one I proposed suggested being able to detect both the rendering  
engine and the browser, so that one could also account for browser- 
specific items, such as how form fields are drawn (different in  
Camino than in FireFox, for instance). But I agree that the renderer  
(Gecko, Webkit, Trident, etc.) is more important. I would still be  
ecstatic if that were included in media queries, even if the browser  
name were not.

I never said that the entire UA string should be used, as that is  
already hopelessly muddied. I suggested a media query that the  
software could provide simple, honest values to, not something that  
is derived from javascript or HTTP headers (as we already have that).

Any UA spoofing another in a media query, in order to pick up CSS  
meant for dealing with another UA's rendering bugs (or differences of  
interpretation), would be doing so to their own detriment. I just  
don't see it happening. The implementors in this WG could keep it  
from happening in the prevalent browsers.

On Nov 18, 2007, at 8:04 AM, David E. Ross wrote:

> The initial proposal shows a fundamental error in concept.  It
> indicates "sniffing" for Firefox when the proper token is Gecko.
> Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine (the backend) is used in Firefox,
> SeaMonkey, Camino, and other user agents, all of which render
> HTML/CSS the same.  However, half-witted Web developers sniff for
> Firefox, leaving the other Gecko browsers unable to view pages
> correctly.  To compensate, Mozilla browsers have the ability to
> spoof other user agents, which renders sniffing useless and which
> also invalidates the use of logs of UA strings to measure the
> prevalence of particular browsers.
> CSS should not contain any feature that makes sniffing easier.
> David E. Ross
> <>.
> Don't ask "Why is there road rage?"  Instead, ask
> "Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such
> Thing as Fast Enough?"
> <>

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 06:40:29 UTC