4 ms·

I agree, but this also is incredibly dependent on the major players (e.g. Google) not going off on their own making changes without agreement from other browser

I agree, but this also is incredibly dependent on the major players (e.g. Google) not going off on their own making changes without agreement from other browsers... There are still issues today where chrome, edge, and Firefox render slightly differently. I certainly agree user agent isn't terribly necessary, but it's literally the only hook to identify when css or JavaScript needs to change... Or to support people on older browsers (e.g. Firefox ESR). How can I know when I can update my website to newer language versions without metrics confirming my users support the new ES version? I would argue simplifying the UA, product + major revision, maybe, or information relevant to rendering and JavaScript only

_bxg1 7y ago
Thinking cynically, it could be a power-move by Google to strengthen their hold on the ecosystem. Right now when they go out and make their own API changes without consensus (which already happens), it's possible to distinguish the "for Chrome" case and still support the standard. But if there were no User-Agent, and Google wanted to strongarm the whole group into something, and 90% of browsers are Chromium-based, devs will likely just support the Chromium version and everyone else will have no choice but to fall in line.
- jaywalk 7y ago
  I think it's perfectly fair to lean towards cynicism whenever Google goes out on their own making changes to Chrome.
- ldng 7y ago
  You mean, like SPDY/HTTP2 ?
  - klodolph 7y ago
    As far as I can tell, HTTP/2 is such a major improvement that no strong-arming is necessary. Speaking as a consumer of the web, as an individual who runs their own website, and at a developer working at a company with a major web presence. The web suffers a ton from the “red queen” rule in so many different ways anyway—you have to do a lot of work just to stay in the same place.
    - ldng 7y ago
      But, is it really such an improvement ? Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? I still see a lot of contradicting benchmark and, apart from some Google Apps, personnally, I have not seen a lot of sites actually really leveraging HTTP2 (including push). But maybe you did put and leverage HTTP2 on your own website ? At your company ? Did you use push ? Do you use it with CDN ?
      - klodolph 7y ago
        > But, is it really such an improvement? Yes, unequivocally. It’s amazing, even without push. The websites that use it are faster, and the development process for making apps or sites that load quickly is much more sane. You don’t have to resort to the kind of weird trickery that pervades HTTP/1 apps. > Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. Could you explain that? > But maybe you did put and leverage HTTP2 on your own website ? At your company ? Did you use push ? Do you use it with CDN ? From my parent comment, > Speaking as a consumer of the web, as an individual who runs their own website, and at a developer working at a company with a major web presence. My personal web site uses HTTP/2. It serves a combination of static pages and web apps. No push. HTTP/2 was almost zero effort to set up, and instantly improved performance. With HTTP/2, I’ve changed the way I develop web apps, for the better. My employer’s website uses every technique under the sun, including push and CDNs.
        jefftk 7y ago
        > My employer’s website uses every technique under the sun, including push and CDNs. Are you actually seeing good results from push? I have seen many projects try to use it, but am not aware of any that have ended up keeping it. (Disclosure: I work at Google)
        klodolph 7y ago
        > Are you actually seeing good results from push? Push isn’t worth it, from what I understand. I think that’s the conclusion at work.
- wolco 7y ago
  It is a power move because they use a chrome id to identify you. User agent isn't important to them by very important to others.
ryandrake 7y ago
Maybe web publishers need to let go of this idea of pixel-perfect rendering and identical JavaScript behavior across browsers, and instead just worry about publishing good content. The web is not Adobe InDesign or Photoshop. At its essence it is a system for publishing text and hyperlinks that point to other content. Get the content right and don't worry so much about whether the scrollbar is 2 pixels thick or 3.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  I, too, remember how this opinion was repeated as nauseam about a decade ago. It didn’t make much sense then, and even less now. Nobody today expects identical rendering: people are used to responsive websites, native widgets etc. The problem people are actually experiencing (far less now than in the past) were more serious, such as z-axis ordering differences resulting in backgrounds obscuring content. For JavaScript, I struggle with how non-“identical behavior” would express itself, except as a blank page and a small red icon in devtools.

_bxg1 7y ago

Thinking cynically, it could be a power-move by Google to strengthen their hold on the ecosystem. Right now when they go out and make their own API changes without consensus (which already happens), it's possible to distinguish the "for Chrome" case and still support the standard. But if there were no User-Agent, and Google wanted to strongarm the whole group into something, and 90% of browsers are Chromium-based, devs will likely just support the Chromium version and everyone else will have no choice but to fall in line.

jaywalk 7y ago
I think it's perfectly fair to lean towards cynicism whenever Google goes out on their own making changes to Chrome.
ldng 7y ago
You mean, like SPDY/HTTP2 ?
- klodolph 7y ago
  As far as I can tell, HTTP/2 is such a major improvement that no strong-arming is necessary. Speaking as a consumer of the web, as an individual who runs their own website, and at a developer working at a company with a major web presence. The web suffers a ton from the “red queen” rule in so many different ways anyway—you have to do a lot of work just to stay in the same place.
  - ldng 7y ago
    But, is it really such an improvement ? Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? I still see a lot of contradicting benchmark and, apart from some Google Apps, personnally, I have not seen a lot of sites actually really leveraging HTTP2 (including push). But maybe you did put and leverage HTTP2 on your own website ? At your company ? Did you use push ? Do you use it with CDN ?
    - klodolph 7y ago
      > But, is it really such an improvement? Yes, unequivocally. It’s amazing, even without push. The websites that use it are faster, and the development process for making apps or sites that load quickly is much more sane. You don’t have to resort to the kind of weird trickery that pervades HTTP/1 apps. > Or is it just an improvement for Cloud provider that keep pushing the Kool-Aid ? I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. Could you explain that? > But maybe you did put and leverage HTTP2 on your own website ? At your company ? Did you use push ? Do you use it with CDN ? From my parent comment, > Speaking as a consumer of the web, as an individual who runs their own website, and at a developer working at a company with a major web presence. My personal web site uses HTTP/2. It serves a combination of static pages and web apps. No push. HTTP/2 was almost zero effort to set up, and instantly improved performance. With HTTP/2, I’ve changed the way I develop web apps, for the better. My employer’s website uses every technique under the sun, including push and CDNs.
      - jefftk 7y ago
        > My employer’s website uses every technique under the sun, including push and CDNs. Are you actually seeing good results from push? I have seen many projects try to use it, but am not aware of any that have ended up keeping it. (Disclosure: I work at Google)
        klodolph 7y ago
        > Are you actually seeing good results from push? Push isn’t worth it, from what I understand. I think that’s the conclusion at work.
wolco 7y ago
It is a power move because they use a chrome id to identify you. User agent isn't important to them by very important to others.

ryandrake 7y ago

Maybe web publishers need to let go of this idea of pixel-perfect rendering and identical JavaScript behavior across browsers, and instead just worry about publishing good content. The web is not Adobe InDesign or Photoshop. At its essence it is a system for publishing text and hyperlinks that point to other content. Get the content right and don't worry so much about whether the scrollbar is 2 pixels thick or 3.

KarlKemp 7y ago
I, too, remember how this opinion was repeated as nauseam about a decade ago. It didn’t make much sense then, and even less now. Nobody today expects identical rendering: people are used to responsive websites, native widgets etc. The problem people are actually experiencing (far less now than in the past) were more serious, such as z-axis ordering differences resulting in backgrounds obscuring content. For JavaScript, I struggle with how non-“identical behavior” would express itself, except as a blank page and a small red icon in devtools.