+1 removing our buggy code On 9/19/12 10:13 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey > >There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should >work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web >history. Currently, we have two web history APIs. One of which is >the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the >other is the web browser history. For some reason, we're still using >the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it >works better with the apps that have already been deployed. However, >I would like to see web history adopted because of the following >reasons: > >1. Consistency across browser >2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android >3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a >fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0 > >That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something >wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from >people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good, >private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again. > >Thoughts? > >Joe
