On 9/22/06, Thomas Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am 20.09.2006 um 20:00 schrieb Peter Michaux: > > > I'm curious why there is a lack of interest in removing > > navigator.userAgent from Scriptaculous. Is it because Scriptaculous > > developers do not understand how unreliable this technique is? > > It's because it just works the way it is-- it's obvously not causing > problems > in the "real world", or else we'd see tons of tickets on this. As we > officially > support IE 6+, Firefox 1+ and Safari 1+ we don't have the problem of not > being able to sniff all browsers this way (as the main argument goes). > > > This is "the low hanging fruit" to make Scriptaculous much better as > > browser sniffing is the biggest no-no in creating good JavaScript. > > Well, many things have been named the biggest no-no. > Give me a yes-yes (patch+tests) and we'll all be happy. :)
Hi Thomas, Thanks for the information. This has been added to my todo list. Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
