On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg <dan...@haxx.se> wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather we didn't for similar reasons.
That's a good point. We don't want to hamper HTTP/2 adoption because of
an unrelated compatibility change. However, one could make a similar
argument about Firefox and Chrome (and, for the time being, IE) tying
HTTP/2 with TLS.
If we're interested in this, maybe run an experiment where Nightly offers a
User-Agent of just "Nightly". See how that goes. I don't expect much
success unfortunately; UA detection is still in pretty wide use, and not
always for the wrong reasons (you won't have to search back far on
mozilla-google-discuss for an example).
I have used Nightly without any User-Agent header (using the "Modify
Headers" add-on) for about a month. I have not found any major problems,
but I'm sure they exist. :)
chris
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
