Maybe it would be a good time for someone to write IETF I-D to proposed a standard and consistency method for detection. Right now, the best I can tell, the parsing rule of thumb is the last non- parenthentical name/version pair.
--- Darin Fisher wrote: > I share your frustration ;-) > -darin > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Bernd Kreuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Darin Fisher wrote: > > > This was done for compatibility. Unfortunately a lot of web sites look > > > for "safari" in the UA string to determine if they should tailor their > > > content for webkit! > > > > All UA strings these days are ridiculous jokes and Chrome just takes > > this to the next level. > > > > I would propose that a proper UA-string should look like this > > > > <engine>-<version>[/<browser>-<version>] > > > > <better world> > > In real life it could be even more simple and still sufficient for > > ~98.2% of all applications if all UA-Strings would look like this: > > > > internetexploder-[no|yes: <version>] > > > > </better world> > > > > Someone *must* do the first step out of this nonsense. > > > > > > - -- > > private communication within hostile networks: > > http://torchat.googlecode.com/ > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFI23hkxT6R4jlFoh0RArpHAJ4qLG8vrbDenQx9qT92pWK4aQFEHwCeJEcD > > SwuU/dB0FtJYUJs28cBktdg= > > =05iB > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
