You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@devicemap.apache.org by Reza Naghibi <re...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2014/09/25 15:13:12 UTC
RE: Fwd: Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting device
model
Looks good. I will echo your request for user agent data. The lack of data impacts the projects ability to identify new devices.
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "eberhard speer jr." <se...@ducis.net> </div><div>Date:09/25/2014 3:26 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "dev >> 'devicemap-dev@incubator.apache.org'" <de...@incubator.apache.org> </div><div>Subject: Fwd: Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting device
model </div><div>
</div>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FYI, my 2 cents to the WhatWG on the UA-string.
esjr
- -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting device
model
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:05 +0300
From: eberhard speer jr. <se...@ducis.net>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Hi,
As a contributor to the (incubating) Apache DeviceMap project,
UA-strings are pretty 'dear' to me.
While I would agree there is no immediate need for new or extra
structures; the vendors just applying the existing 'standards' and not
abusing the UA-string for 'marketing' purposes, would go a long way.
An ideal UA-string would, as Silvia Pfeiffer pointed out, contain :
OS, Browser and Rending Engine, with version numbers. In the case of a
'device' [a pretty fluid concept] a deviceId [hopefully related to an
UAProfile] should also be present.
It seems to me that thanks to HTML 5 and all the nifty frameworks
out-there most 'device detecting' these days is mainly for the purpose
of analyses and I think this is the main reason for Marketing Man to
get involved and fiddle with the "truthiness" of the UA-string and
sometimes even values reported by the navigator object itself.
If there's anything upsetting us UA-stringers it's the cavalier
attitude towards the existing 'standards'.
My 2c.
eberhard speer jr.
PS : Please send me ua-strings...
On 24/09/2014 19:42, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2014 3:51 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2014 20:40, "James Graham" <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/09/14 02:54, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the meantime, I'd like to add a property to
>>>> window.navigator to enable websites to get the same
>>>> information from there as is already available in the UA
>>>> string. That would at least help with the parsing problem.
>>>>
>>>> And if means that we could more quickly move the device
>>>> model out of the UA string, then it also helps with the
>>>> UA-string keying thing.
>>>
>>> It's not entirely clear this won't just leave us with the
>>> device string in two places, and unable to remove either of
>>> them. Do we have any evidence that the sites using UA
>>> detection will all change their code in relatively short order,
>>> or become unimportant enough that we are able to break them?
>>
>> Why don't we provide a better structure and not just a random
>> string. For example: deviceID, browserID, renderingEngineVersion
>> ... Not sure what
> else
>> would be useful to group actions that the developer needs to
>> take. Haven't looked in detail.
>
> I'm supportive of exposing any information that we are already
> exposing through the UA string.
>
> But most of it already is. Through various other properties on the
> navigator object.
>
> / Jonas
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUI8ONAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcr2AH/idTdR319Oq5cCmKdnG5tSHk
FmmvWXqc9CqDIu037v5Zh11PdHJhT61BV7jyyXBBNVSNMPT4fV6MwzUjFyM0ib6T
ThhmC5x6EFFt0fNg0HWAxWUsxhfT5uyOQ32mV42cJoT+5YVE8pJPc3MpNpo3EdZA
B3Wu07U3MqnuS0fVPc4k0US0Is6kzixJzWaseQVCRpP9stwXJxh9qThMuhYusrsR
GxBO/Wud3ArKkrMVES0++F7KLfBVfo+Pmje+rzDG90aHP5gvnpjEzqO9KKTdT1k+
5O15pv85EIFGYKGas9v0bzIOhe1r9A9ydNANQUsbIBpiZ/BjpZ50jP6MAP1j05Y=
=DULx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: Fwd: Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting
device model
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good.
We discussed iOS issues earlier.
Is there a reliable way to detect if it is an iPhone6 or more importantly
the larger Plus?
Werner
Am 25.09.2014 06:14 schrieb "Reza Naghibi" <re...@yahoo.com.invalid>:
> Looks good. I will echo your request for user agent data. The lack of data
> impacts the projects ability to identify new devices.
>
> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "eberhard speer
> jr." <se...@ducis.net> </div><div>Date:09/25/2014 3:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
> </div><div>To: "dev >> 'devicemap-dev@incubator.apache.org'" <
> devicemap-dev@incubator.apache.org> </div><div>Subject: Fwd: Re: [whatwg]
> Adding a property to navigator for getting device
> model </div><div>
> </div>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> FYI, my 2 cents to the WhatWG on the UA-string.
>
> esjr
> - -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [whatwg] Adding a property to navigator for getting device
> model
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:21:05 +0300
> From: eberhard speer jr. <se...@ducis.net>
> To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
>
> Hi,
>
> As a contributor to the (incubating) Apache DeviceMap project,
> UA-strings are pretty 'dear' to me.
>
> While I would agree there is no immediate need for new or extra
> structures; the vendors just applying the existing 'standards' and not
> abusing the UA-string for 'marketing' purposes, would go a long way.
>
> An ideal UA-string would, as Silvia Pfeiffer pointed out, contain :
> OS, Browser and Rending Engine, with version numbers. In the case of a
> 'device' [a pretty fluid concept] a deviceId [hopefully related to an
> UAProfile] should also be present.
>
> It seems to me that thanks to HTML 5 and all the nifty frameworks
> out-there most 'device detecting' these days is mainly for the purpose
> of analyses and I think this is the main reason for Marketing Man to
> get involved and fiddle with the "truthiness" of the UA-string and
> sometimes even values reported by the navigator object itself.
>
> If there's anything upsetting us UA-stringers it's the cavalier
> attitude towards the existing 'standards'.
>
> My 2c.
>
> eberhard speer jr.
>
> PS : Please send me ua-strings...
>
> On 24/09/2014 19:42, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2014 3:51 AM, "Silvia Pfeiffer"
> > <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 24 Sep 2014 20:40, "James Graham" <ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24/09/14 02:54, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In the meantime, I'd like to add a property to
> >>>> window.navigator to enable websites to get the same
> >>>> information from there as is already available in the UA
> >>>> string. That would at least help with the parsing problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> And if means that we could more quickly move the device
> >>>> model out of the UA string, then it also helps with the
> >>>> UA-string keying thing.
> >>>
> >>> It's not entirely clear this won't just leave us with the
> >>> device string in two places, and unable to remove either of
> >>> them. Do we have any evidence that the sites using UA
> >>> detection will all change their code in relatively short order,
> >>> or become unimportant enough that we are able to break them?
> >>
> >> Why don't we provide a better structure and not just a random
> >> string. For example: deviceID, browserID, renderingEngineVersion
> >> ... Not sure what
> > else
> >> would be useful to group actions that the developer needs to
> >> take. Haven't looked in detail.
> >
> > I'm supportive of exposing any information that we are already
> > exposing through the UA string.
> >
> > But most of it already is. Through various other properties on the
> > navigator object.
> >
> > / Jonas
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUI8ONAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcr2AH/idTdR319Oq5cCmKdnG5tSHk
> FmmvWXqc9CqDIu037v5Zh11PdHJhT61BV7jyyXBBNVSNMPT4fV6MwzUjFyM0ib6T
> ThhmC5x6EFFt0fNg0HWAxWUsxhfT5uyOQ32mV42cJoT+5YVE8pJPc3MpNpo3EdZA
> B3Wu07U3MqnuS0fVPc4k0US0Is6kzixJzWaseQVCRpP9stwXJxh9qThMuhYusrsR
> GxBO/Wud3ArKkrMVES0++F7KLfBVfo+Pmje+rzDG90aHP5gvnpjEzqO9KKTdT1k+
> 5O15pv85EIFGYKGas9v0bzIOhe1r9A9ydNANQUsbIBpiZ/BjpZ50jP6MAP1j05Y=
> =DULx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>