3 ms·
Benefit's obvious - getting rid of legacy cruft. It has to be done someday, or by 2030 we'll end up with few kilobyte-long UA strings. Cost: bajillion man-hour
by drdaeman 11y ago
Benefit's obvious - getting rid of legacy cruft. It has to be done someday, or by 2030 we'll end up with few kilobyte-long UA strings.
Cost: bajillion man-hours of CEOs, companies and committees trying to negotiate that they all do this at once, then about 10 minutes of developer time to actually code this into reality.
Then some sites would be broken, but old stuff eventually rotting and dying is nothing new on the web. Unfortunately, no idea about the numbers, but I suppose it would be low. If someone has the actual statistics on how much sites become practically unusable without a legacy User-Agent header, that'd be great.
- lmm 11y ago> Benefit's obvious - getting rid of legacy cruft. It has to be done someday, or by 2030 we'll end up with few kilobyte-long UA strings. Which will cost how much by the standards of 2030? Particularly given HTTP/2 header compression.
- drdaeman 11y agoGetting lower response times isn't a main point here. Getting rid of the cruft is about sanity, not extra milliseconds. But I'm sure even by 2040 there still will be a lot of places with awful network connectivity, where every kilobyte would still matter.