4 ms·

That would be the standard string. It would just be an ugly legacy string that tries to be all classic UA strings. You just stop updating it past that. The mai

That would be the standard string. It would just be an ugly legacy string that tries to be all classic UA strings. You just stop updating it past that. The main goal isn't to break backwards compatibility, it is to make the point that there won't be FORWARDS compatibility. That UA string is static forever.

tacostakohashi 12y ago
That's what "Mozilla/..." already is and always has been, and it obviously doesn't work. All you need is for one browser manufacturer to break the rule and advertise their new feature via something new at the end, and then everyone else who continues to play by the "standard string" rules suffers. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating UA strings - but to get rid of them, there needs to be an approach where there isn't a punishment for following the rules.
- cpeterso 12y ago
  Even removing"Mozilla/" could break UA detection that uses hardcoded string indexes to version numberz. :(
  - anonymfus 12y ago
    Opera since 9.0 up to 12.x had user-agent without Mozilla. I still use Opera 12.17 and mostly only Google's sites are broken.
    - cpeterso 12y ago
      Interesting! I did not know that, though I think many users would complain if "only" Google's sites were broken in browser X but not Y. :)
- tracker1 12y ago
  Hell, I'd be happy if browsers sent a content and platform dimensions headers... so that I at least know the screen size, and if it's in a window, the content size that will be filled.... would make it really nice to be able to do adaptive rendering of the markup.