What I didn't agree with was detection of unused operating systems, browsers, etc. It just become pointless to be spending too much time detecting which noncomplient browser they were using and this is where your code was exessive.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason that the code was submitted in the first place is because I found
that when using the API on a Windows 98 machine after installing Opera 5.02 I
was able to spoof my way past the browser sniffer that is used by the API.
If I build a site and want that site to completely and totally ignore Opera
browsers because they don't support the API then I don't them to slip by due
to a crappy browser sniffer. The code that was submitted didn't test for
anything new. It only improved the way in which the testing was done in
order to get a more accurate reading. The code that is used has
COMPATIBILITY issues and should be fixed. Not doing so will most likely
cause a number of bugs due to the browser not being detected properly in the
first place. So it is not a waste of time, it is not too much code, it is
not the Netscape ultimate client sniffer because we don't need the ultimate
client sniffer, we just need to know if the browser we are dealing with is NS
or IE and if it's on Mac or Win32 which is what the original submission will
determine. So in review, submitting a fix to a major bug in the core of the
API is being rejected based on the fact that it does better detection of the
browsers that we do support. We are in turn refusing to ensure COMPATIBILITY
of the code and are ensuring failure of the code.Once again, just my point of view.
Michael Pemberton wrote:
>I'm afraid I have to agree with Doug here.
>
>The reason for detecting the various browsers is for COMPATIBILITY. It is
not
>intended to be used as a giant test to see which variant of a spoofed AOL
>browser they are using.
>
>If you can find an example of the API working on a specific platform that
>requires a few browser specific fixes, send em on in. THEN, and ONLY THEN is
>there any point in detecting the browser. Otherwise we are just simply
wasting
>our time detecting which non-compliant browser they are using and they won't
be
>able to see your page anyway.
--
Michael Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 12107010
