-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
Chrome 110 applies User-Agent reduction to Navigator properties + User-Agent header
#28275
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
chrisdavidmills
wants to merge
4
commits into
mdn:main
Choose a base branch
from
chrisdavidmills:ua-reduction
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+144
−0
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5b65fc0
Add User-Agent reduction data points to relevant features
chrisdavidmills 2f6fcf2
Use more suitable spec_url
chrisdavidmills d611bfe
Update descriptions to class suggestion
chrisdavidmills e594f1c
Merge branch 'main' into ua-reduction
caugner File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Elchi3 What do you think about this behavioral subfeature?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You didn't ask me so FWIW, I'm -1 on this as a feature or at least one that is
"standard_track": true. The linked "spec" says:If it's descriptive, then it's merely documentation that does not specify anything. The spec doesn't actually say what the vendors must or should do, just what they have done as convention. I think this is comparable to linking to an MDN page in a
spec_url.I think this would be better as a note that says exactly what's being reduced. Something along the lines of:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Your logic here sounds reasonable, but downgrading this to a note troubles me a bit. I am documenting user-agent reduction and what it means to the values reported by the
User-AgentHTTP header (and associated API features). In a couple of places, like here in the user-agent reduction guide I link to the browser compat table to let people know which browsers support this.I worry that if it is just a note, it'll be fairly easy to miss the note.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I acknowledge this concern and I agree that is a bit obscure in a note. That said, maybe a change to the docs might help? My suggestion for the docs would be to be somewhat more aggressive in saying that the content of a UA string is not actually standardized (even if the string's format is) and, theoretically, could change at any time. The browser tables might tell you how and when UA strings have changed, but I would hate to suggest to a developer that they could or should rely on that information.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point. Could we do both?
I'd still like UA reduction to be called out in the compat tables (and let's face it, we'll need to add another data point if a browser decides to do a U-turn, whether the info is contained in notes or separate data points).
But I also see the value in updating the doc that the data point links to, to make it clearer that the UA string content is still not standardized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, both is OK. I would still like these subfeatures to be
standard_track: falsethough (it would be nice for web-features, where I don't think this is a thing that should get a meaningful computed status—it's not really a "feature" that developers can use—if anything, it represents the opposite).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can also just update the spec to be normative if that makes your lives easier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If that means we can put
standard_track: true, then I think it is a good idea.It would still be good to update the docs, as previously discussed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did not think editing the spec would be an option. That would be ideal!