On 05/02/15 02:24, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Maybe something we can discuss soon: Feb 18, 2015. Some Microsoft people will
> be there.
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebCompat_Summit_%282015%29#Summit_Schedule
Yes; I'd love to hear their take on this.
Duelling product groups in Microsoft?
Gerv
Gervase,
Le 4 févr. 2015 à 18:53, Gervase Markham a écrit :
> Hmm. I'm surprised that having managed to trim down the UA for IE 11 to
> be "not old IE, standards compliant stuff please", they then take the
> opposite approach with Spartan, when they want to send basically the
> same message.
Ma
On 28/01/15 15:45, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> That's IE11, which is not the same as Spartan.
Hmm. I'm surprised that having managed to trim down the UA for IE 11 to
be "not old IE, standards compliant stuff please", they then take the
opposite approach with Spartan, when they want to send basically
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
I remember one particular bug in Firefox (which was only fixed years later) that I
spent considerable effort trying to figure out how to work around without a UA string
check, and eventually gave up. It was something like: if you append #foo to the URL
while the page is l
btw,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 07:16, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> We did ask. The range of reasons spreads on a very large spectrum. Technical,
> Commercial, Laziness, Economic constraints, etc. During the survey last year,
> we got answers from business people, Web developers, companies providing UA
> d
On 28/01/2015 15:25, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 27/01/15 09:16, Chris Peterson wrote:
btw, here is the "spartan" User-Agent string for Microsoft's new Spartan
browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like
Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0
Really
On 27/01/15 09:16, Chris Peterson wrote:
> btw, here is the "spartan" User-Agent string for Microsoft's new Spartan
> browser:
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like
> Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0
Really?
http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2013/0
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:51:40AM +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> >
> >> I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
> >> since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breaka
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Are there recent studies of which features servers do detect and why? I
> could see arguments for sharing information about mobile devices, touch
> support, and OS.
Long ago I used to do development for MediaWiki. We had UA string
checks
Le 27/01/2015 22:31, Chris Peterson a écrit :
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to
On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg 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 di
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
>> far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
>> create better alternatives for them.
>>
>> Essentia
Chris,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 06:19, Chris Peterson a écrit :
> 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. :)
I have used for a while the "User-Agent: FuckYeah/1.0" heade
Chris,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 06:31, Chris Peterson a écrit :
> Are there recent studies of which features servers do detect and why? I could
> see arguments for sharing information about mobile devices, touch support,
> and OS.
We did ask. The range of reasons spreads on a very large spectrum. Te
On 27/01/2015 21:31, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to do
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to do server-side feature detection in
order to de
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg 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
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the spec
> does not require it. What if browser vendors similarly agreed to never send
> the User-Agent header over HTTP/2?
>
> If legacy content relies on User-Agent checks,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg 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.
If we're interested in this,
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Chris Peterson wrote:
Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the spec
does not require it.
THe IE people have stated repeatedly that they will support it over plain TCP
eventually though, it was just not done in the preview.
What if browser ve
Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the
spec does not require it. What if browser vendors similarly agreed to
never send the User-Agent header over HTTP/2?
If legacy content relies on User-Agent checks, it could:
* Stick with HTTP/1.1.
* Use HTTP/2 connection upgr
21 matches
Mail list logo
