Perhaps matching the full agent string is a bad idea. I'd hate to have
to parse many variations of things like:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5)
Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5
-Andrew
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem already brought up is that minor version may not be
> enough. In a 3 part version (ie 2.0.10) the minor of 0 isn't helpful
> if you want to do something based on the 10 value
>
> -Andrew
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Matt Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The regex would be powerful though I'm afraid that it would not as
> > obvious or easy to use for non-technical designers/skinners.
> >
> > I think something like this would be clearer:
> >
> > @agent ie and (min-major-version: 6) and (min-minor-version: 1) and
> > (max-major-version: 6) {
> > /* styles for IE agent version 6.1 through 6.x (inclusive) */
> > }
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matt
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Robinson
> >
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well that is difficult isn't it? Perhaps what I suggested a long time
> > > back in my bug is best and allow regexp:
> > >
> > > @agent blah and (matches-version: /someRegExp/)
> > >
> > > example to match 6.x through 7.x:
> > > @agent ie and (matches-version: /[67](\.\d)*/)
> > >
> > > yeah it is harder to write, but then we can write it once and it
> > > handles pretty much all use cases.
> > >
> > > The other twist is to give the code entire user agent string:
> > >
> > > @agent matches(/MSIE\s+[67]/)
> > >
> > > This really gives the user all the control they need and it is pretty
> > > easy to parse without having to code many syntax improvements over
> > > time as new requirements come up.
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Andy Schwartz
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Andrew Robinson
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'll be happy either way, but I think I now bend to the below
> > > > > explanation of 5 == 5.0 from Jeanne's reasoning
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, I actually agree with Jeanne's first opinion. :-)
> > > >
> > > > That is, I think of "5" as "5.*". "5.0" as "5.0.*", etc.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the use of floating points to represent versions... I was
> > > > wondering whether we should avoid this since it would prevents us
> from
> > > > supporting "major.minor.reallyminor" version strings. I don't know
> > > > that we will ever need to go further than major.minor, though the
> > > > Gecko versions use the third digit, so perhaps we should pick a
> > > > solution that doesn't preclude us from supporting this?
> > > >
> > > > (BTW, sorry all about my little digression earlier on the thread...)
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
