3 ms·
We have feature detection for that which solves the worst problems. I'd much rather if the "version number" of the browser wasn't exposed, and instead somethin
by Klathmon 9y ago
We have feature detection for that which solves the worst problems.
I'd much rather if the "version number" of the browser wasn't exposed, and instead something like a UUID that changes every "major version" for each browser.
This lets developers blacklist specific browser versions if they are a problem, without allowing them to say "only works on chrome" or "fallback to this on safari at any version".
I know this would be basically impossible to get everyone to agree on, but it's an interesting thought.
- laumars 9y agoAll you're doing there is replacing one arbitrary version identifier with another arbitrary version identifier. People would still know what browser you're running because we'd quickly see "rainbow tables" with UUIDs and the browsers they correspond too. So the problem you're attempting to solve would still exist.
- Klathmon 9y agoI would "fix" the problem of being able to target future versions of a browser without some kind of automatically updating system. It's not about making it impossible, it's about making it difficult enough that the "easy path" is feature detection (AKA "doing it right")
- laumars 9y agoI think you're underestimating peoples ability to waste time writing lengthy bad solutions which follow a behavior they're already familiar with, rather than properly researching a good solution.
- Klathmon 9y agoAgain, you can't fix everyone. If someone is dead set on doing useragent sniffing, they are going to do it. No technical solution is going to stop them. But by changing how the useragent works I think we can get rid of the vast majority who only do useragent sniffing because it's the "easy way out", it's the quick fix that will let them get back to development instead of fixing a bug or shimming a feature.