Adam Barth wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ryosuke Niwa<[email protected]> wrote:
What is the rationale for adding this property on the navigator object
instead of the chrome object we also expose if your'e not expecting this
property to be ever standarized?
Generally, we avoid implementing web visible features via the "chrome"
object because that makes them Chrome-proprietary. In this case, it
seems entirely reasonable for other browsers (e.g., Firefox) to want
to implement this feature. By putting it on navigator, we invite them
to implement it as well.
No, that's not how you invite someone to do something, in conventional
human-to-human interactions :-|. It's a bit aggro -- if it makes a
de-facto standard, others will follow whether they like it or not. If it
has undesirable unintended consequences, too bad. As Dean pointed out,
it also contradicts the pitch in Annie's first message.
As Annie noted, we don't feel the need since our UA string has some [ab]
cruft in it at the end, and a number after the letter that's important.
But UA groveling sucks. Could we instead discuss navigator.buildType in
some appropriate W3C or WHATWG list?
/be
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
