On 05/02/15 02:24, Karl Dubost wrote:
Maybe something we can discuss soon: Feb 18, 2015. Some Microsoft people will
be there.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebCompat_Summit_%282015%29#Summit_Schedule
Yes; I'd love to hear their take on this.
Duelling product groups in Microsoft?
Gerv
On 28/01/15 15:45, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
That's IE11, which is not the same as Spartan.
Hmm. I'm surprised that having managed to trim down the UA for IE 11 to
be not old IE, standards compliant stuff please, they then take the
opposite approach with Spartan, when they want to send basically
Gervase,
Le 4 févr. 2015 à 18:53, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org a écrit :
Hmm. I'm surprised that having managed to trim down the UA for IE 11 to
be not old IE, standards compliant stuff please, they then take the
opposite approach with Spartan, when they want to send basically the
same
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com wrote:
Are there recent studies of which features servers do detect and why? I
could see arguments for sharing information about mobile devices, touch
support, and OS.
Long ago I used to do development for MediaWiki. We
Le 27/01/2015 22:31, Chris Peterson a écrit :
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:51:40AM +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
I remember one particular bug in Firefox (which was only fixed years later) that I
spent considerable effort trying to figure out how to work around without a UA string
check, and eventually gave up. It was something like: if you append #foo to the URL
while the page is
On 28/01/2015 15:25, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 27/01/15 09:16, Chris Peterson wrote:
btw, here is the spartan User-Agent string for Microsoft's new Spartan
browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like
Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0
Really?
On 27/01/15 09:16, Chris Peterson wrote:
btw, here is the spartan User-Agent string for Microsoft's new Spartan
browser:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like
Gecko) Chrome/39.0.2171.71 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.0
Really?
btw,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 07:16, Karl Dubost kdub...@mozilla.com a écrit :
We did ask. The range of reasons spreads on a very large spectrum. Technical,
Commercial, Laziness, Economic constraints, etc. During the survey last year,
we got answers from business people, Web developers, companies
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to do server-side feature detection in
order to
On 27/01/2015 21:31, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
Essentially many websites need to do
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather we
Chris,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 06:31, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com a écrit :
Are there recent studies of which features servers do detect and why? I could
see arguments for sharing information about mobile devices, touch support,
and OS.
We did ask. The range of reasons spreads on a very
Chris,
Le 28 janv. 2015 à 06:19, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com a écrit :
I have used Nightly without any User-Agent header (using the Modify Headers
add-on) for about a month. I have not found any major problems, but I'm sure
they exist. :)
I have used for a while the User-Agent:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 1/27/15 9:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
We keep telling websites to not use the UA string, however we've so
far been very bad at asking them why they use the UA string and then
create better alternatives for them.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Chris Peterson wrote:
Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the spec
does not require it.
THe IE people have stated repeatedly that they will support it over plain TCP
eventually though, it was just not done in the preview.
What if browser
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Chris Peterson cpeter...@mozilla.com wrote:
Firefox, Chrome, and IE only support HTTP/2 over TLS, even though the spec
does not require it. What if browser vendors similarly agreed to never send
the User-Agent header over HTTP/2?
If legacy content relies on
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather we didn't for similar reasons.
If we're
On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg dan...@haxx.se wrote:
I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2
since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the
protocol bump.
I'd rather
20 matches
Mail list logo
