Yep sounds like a great deprecation candidate. On 9/19/12 11:50 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2 >but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in >5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable >it in their apps and they have time to make the switch. > >Simon Mac Donald >http://hi.im/simonmacdonald > > >On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, 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
