OK, I think we should make sure that window.history.go(-1) actually works. I'm finding that it has weird results on mobile-spec, and I'm investigating it now.
Joe On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > Yep sounds like a great deprecation candidate. > > On 9/19/12 11:50 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2 >>but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in >>5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable >>it in their apps and they have time to make the switch. >> >>Simon Mac Donald >>http://hi.im/simonmacdonald >> >> >>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hey >>> >>> There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should >>> work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web >>> history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is >>> the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the >>> other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using >>> the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it >>> works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However, >>> I would like to see web history adopted because of the following >>> reasons: >>> >>> 1. Consistency across browser >>> 2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android >>> 3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a >>> fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0 >>> >>> That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something >>> wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from >>> people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good, >>> private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Joe >
