On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > Adam Barth wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Ryosuke Niwa<rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >>> >>> What is the rationale for adding this property on the navigator object >>> >>> instead of the chrome object we also expose if your'e not expecting this >>> property to be ever standarized? >> >> >> Generally, we avoid implementing web visible features via the "chrome" >> object because that makes them Chrome-proprietary. In this case, it >> seems entirely reasonable for other browsers (e.g., Firefox) to want >> to implement this feature. By putting it on navigator, we invite them >> to implement it as well. > > > No, that's not how you invite someone to do something, in conventional > human-to-human interactions :-|. It's a bit aggro -- if it makes a de-facto > standard, others will follow whether they like it or not. If it has > undesirable unintended consequences, too bad. As Dean pointed out, it also > contradicts the pitch in Annie's first message. > > As Annie noted, we don't feel the need since our UA string has some [ab] > cruft in it at the end, and a number after the letter that's important. > > But UA groveling sucks. Could we instead discuss navigator.buildType in some > appropriate W3C or WHATWG list?
Thanks everybody for your feedback! It sounds like we need to think a bit more about the use case and whether there's a better approach we can take. We'll send an updated proposal to the whatwg list after we've thought about it a bit more. -Annie _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev