On 9/7/06, Peter Michaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/7/06, Thomas Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about sharing the headaches and we'll look into it? > > The heavy use of navigator.userAgent is my biggest concern with > maintainance problems. I avoid navigator.userAgent like the plague. > Using it usually means revisting code over and over again as different > browsers spoof as other browsers.
It has been two weeks since I posted this concern and DHH's blog article today inspired me to be persistant with what is good criticism. I'm curious why there is a lack of interest in removing navigator.userAgent from Scriptaculous. Is it because Scriptaculous developers do not understand how unreliable this technique is? Is it because working on some browsers for the time being is good enough? This is "the low hanging fruit" to make Scriptaculous much better as browser sniffing is the biggest no-no in creating good JavaScript. http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/not_browser_detect.html http://www.quirksmode.org/js/support.html Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
