-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI, my 2 cents to the WhatWG on the UA-string.
esjr - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting device model Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:05 +0300 From: eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Hi, As a contributor to the (incubating) Apache DeviceMap project, UA-strings are pretty 'dear' to me. While I would agree there is no immediate need for new or extra structures; the vendors just applying the existing 'standards' and not abusing the UA-string for 'marketing' purposes, would go a long way. An ideal UA-string would, as Silvia Pfeiffer pointed out, contain : OS, Browser and Rending Engine, with version numbers. In the case of a 'device' [a pretty fluid concept] a deviceId [hopefully related to an UAProfile] should also be present. It seems to me that thanks to HTML 5 and all the nifty frameworks out-there most 'device detecting' these days is mainly for the purpose of analyses and I think this is the main reason for Marketing Man to get involved and fiddle with the "truthiness" of the UA-string and sometimes even values reported by the navigator object itself. If there's anything upsetting us UA-stringers it's the cavalier attitude towards the existing 'standards'. My 2c. eberhard speer jr. PS : Please send me ua-strings... On 24/09/2014 19:42, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Sep 24, 2014 3:51 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 24 Sep 2014 20:40, "James Graham" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 24/09/14 02:54, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>>> In the meantime, I'd like to add a property to >>>> window.navigator to enable websites to get the same >>>> information from there as is already available in the UA >>>> string. That would at least help with the parsing problem. >>>> >>>> And if means that we could more quickly move the device >>>> model out of the UA string, then it also helps with the >>>> UA-string keying thing. >>> >>> It's not entirely clear this won't just leave us with the >>> device string in two places, and unable to remove either of >>> them. Do we have any evidence that the sites using UA >>> detection will all change their code in relatively short order, >>> or become unimportant enough that we are able to break them? >> >> Why don't we provide a better structure and not just a random >> string. For example: deviceID, browserID, renderingEngineVersion >> ... Not sure what > else >> would be useful to group actions that the developer needs to >> take. Haven't looked in detail. > > I'm supportive of exposing any information that we are already > exposing through the UA string. > > But most of it already is. Through various other properties on the > navigator object. > > / Jonas > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUI8ONAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcr2AH/idTdR319Oq5cCmKdnG5tSHk FmmvWXqc9CqDIu037v5Zh11PdHJhT61BV7jyyXBBNVSNMPT4fV6MwzUjFyM0ib6T ThhmC5x6EFFt0fNg0HWAxWUsxhfT5uyOQ32mV42cJoT+5YVE8pJPc3MpNpo3EdZA B3Wu07U3MqnuS0fVPc4k0US0Is6kzixJzWaseQVCRpP9stwXJxh9qThMuhYusrsR GxBO/Wud3ArKkrMVES0++F7KLfBVfo+Pmje+rzDG90aHP5gvnpjEzqO9KKTdT1k+ 5O15pv85EIFGYKGas9v0bzIOhe1r9A9ydNANQUsbIBpiZ/BjpZ50jP6MAP1j05Y= =DULx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
