On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Annie Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Dean Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 07/06/2012, at 12:05 PM, Annie Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> In many browsers in the past, it's been >>> pretty easy to determine from "a" and "b" characters in the user agent >>> of many browsers which builds are "alpha" and "beta", and I haven't >>> heard of bugs caused specifically by checking for build type there. >> >> So why not just do that then? > > While it's nice that web developers don't seem to be using the build > type info in the user agent string in their code, user agent parsing > code is still very brittle. Some browsers, like Firefox, have had > buildtype characters in the user agent string for many years, so > parsing code can handle things like "Firefox/14.0a2". But Chrome > hasn't ever changed its version format, so we're worried about > breaking user agent parsers.
Even beyond that, putting the buildType in the User-Agent seems strictly worse that exposing it as a separate property to JavaScript. Adam _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
