I do see a reason to add it. Often we get so wrapped up in the technical side of development we forget about the business side. IMO we should consider the business use case and benefits to doing things. This to me seems like a browser that will be here to stay and will also be popular. Now there is the fact that the JS runs different in Chrome as they reported it. Seems to me knowing this is move valuable so I clearly see it as something that would be appropriate to add. (Perhaps if needed having them change the variable returned if needed to something more uniform if that is an issue.
John Farrar From: John Resig Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Chrome user agent Don't see a reason to add it. Really should be treated any differently than any other WebKit engine is (unfortunately named 'safari' in .browsers). --John On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Erik Beeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chrome on Vista is reporting: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/0.2.149.27 Safari/525.13 Will this be added to jQuery.browser? --Erik --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" 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/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
