Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On 07.09.2017 23:30, Daniel Veditz wrote: ​Without some kind of signal everyone gets the least-common-denominator version of a site Exactly. That was the idea behind the web. Unfortunately, so many things have been added in recent years that browsers became more complex than operating

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Tom Ritter wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Shubhie Panicker via dev-platform > wrote: >> Curious - are there concerns with implementing Client Hints in general? > > Yes. But the fingerprinting team

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult < enrico.weig...@gr13.net> wrote: > Optimally, the browser should tell nothing about the client - web > content should written in a way that it works independent from the > actual client. At least that's how the web originally was

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On 09/07/2017 11:09 AM, Shubhie Panicker via dev-platform wrote: Thanks for the comments. << The low end is extremely small buckets, and the high end isn't even fleshed out but I'm certain that's becomes small buckets too >16GB too. << (Obviously this doesn't take into account mobile, and I

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Shubhie Panicker via dev-platform wrote: > Curious - are there concerns with implementing Client Hints in general? Yes. But the fingerprinting team (specifically, I'm not sure what other teams have done) haven't investigated Client

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

Thanks for the comments. << The low end is extremely small buckets, and the high end isn't even fleshed out but I'm certain that's becomes small buckets too >16GB too. << (Obviously this doesn't take into account mobile, and I couldn't find any reports on distribution of android devices by RAM.)

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On 05.09.2017 19:13, Shubhie Panicker via dev-platform wrote: Hi, Boris expressed privacy concern with the API and suggested starting a > thread here to get some concrete feedback. We would love to get this> feedback and are open to updating the header and API as it would be great> to get FF

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

Why do the numbers need to be standardized? Could we give browsers the ability to change the value in response to their understanding of the current situation. Surely an Android device is easily identifiable as such, so we could choose values that reflect our Android population at the current

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Daniel Veditz wrote: > I do not know what are plans are about Client Hints in general, whether we > intend to or when, and obviously that's a prerequisite. > Client Hints is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=935216, FWIW.

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On 2017-09-06 11:48 AM, Tom Ritter wrote: Steam's hardware survey shows the following distribution percentages. Less than 512 MB 0.00% 512 Mb to 999 MB 0.03% 1 GB 0.52% 2 GB 3.30% 3 GB 6.27% 4 GB 14.96% 5 GB 0.66% 6 GB 3.23% 7 GB 2.33% 8 GB 42.77% 9 GB 0.04% 10 GB 0.29% 11 GB 0.18% 12

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Shubhie Panicker via dev-platform < dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: > Boris expressed privacy concern with the API and suggested starting a > thread here to get some concrete feedback. ​It's great that you agreed to send this (and other client hints?)

Re: Device Memory header and JS API

This is pretty concerning to me from a fingerprinting POV. The spec currently rounds up to one of the following values: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64, 96, 128 Steam's hardware survey shows the following distribution percentages. Less than 512 MB 0.00% 512 Mb to

Device Memory header and JS API

Hi, I work on Chrome Web Platform and we just shipped an API for detecting Device Memory: header and JS API . Boris expressed