- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: 2012年7月17日 21:10:22 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <61428.1342559422@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <98E713A5-3869-438A-B3D3-5C9DA580DD67@opera.com>, Karl Dubost writes : >GET / HTTP/1.1 >Host: www.example.org >Capabilities: <http://example.com/acmeCom/new/shiny/browser/23> >* Some business will be abandoned. Databases will not be updated. > Future fail Too bad ? It's not like User-Agent strings are always correct either... >* The cache system will not be maintained. future fail. We cannot out-standardize incompetence. >* Some scripts will use the URL-ID (new useragent string) to block, > filter, redirect. And what is the harm in this ? If it works, it works, if it doesn't work, it only hurts the website which took the shortcut... >Basically exactly back to the same situation we have today. With one very big difference: We stop the User-Agent string from growing another 10 characters every year... I still think it is a very superior solution to User-Agent, but it can obviously be modified in various ways to address some of the concerns you raise (make it IANA registry, make it an ISO OID, make a repository for the files etc.) But given that there is stuff and standards to levarage from WAP I think we should just make it an URL and leave the problems to other people to solve. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 21:10:44 UTC