Hi Will, Sorry; MozCamp2012 got in the way.
On 30/08/12 22:29, Wil Clouser wrote:
I just saw bug 787054 which is proposing adjusting our User Agent on a per-site basis using a white list. I didn't see a discussion about this but would like to hear the reasoning behind it.
The rationale is that we want to send a sensible UA in the default case, but important sites (some unmaintained) are broken. Rather than try and find the One True Compatibility UA (which doesn't exist) we want to do the right thing in the default case and the thing that works in other major cases.
- Who is maintaining the list? What are the criteria to get on the list?
That needs to be worked out; I'd expect the B2G and evangelism teams to maintain it. I'm all for criteria which keep it short, and involve communicating with the site first.
Changing the UA is far from a magic bullet; there's often Webkit-specific code problems too. So a relationship with the site is going to be necessary in most cases anyway.
- As a developer how do I get on/off the list?
It would probably be part of Mozilla's interactions with you about fixing your site, but otherwise you could just file a bug.
- Is there a public submission to get sites on the list?
I don't anticipate that - well, any more than Mozilla is already a public project.
- Is there a strategy to get sites off the list? (I assume we don't want to maintain the list forever)
Testing and evangelism.
- How are we communicating this to developers? If someone maintains site.com (which is on the list) they will get different results visiting dev.site.com which will be hard to track down.
Right. Which is one reason we need to keep the list short, make sure sites know they are on it, and actively work at getting them off.
Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
