No google that is a WP
-
-
+
-
WTH, I wasn't aware there was an Internet Explorer for Android!
-
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh869301(v=vs.85).aspx
The Microsoft Edge for desktop in Windows 10 and RemoteIE builds is designed for maximum interoperability with other modern browsers and contemporary web content. It has the following user-agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.<OS build number>
Microsoft Edge for Windows 10 Mobile has the following user-agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows Phone 10.0; Android 4.2.1; DEVICE INFO) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Mobile Safari/537.36 Edge/12.<OS build number>
MS edge seems to have quite the identity crisis.
-
The mess that is the user-agent string system is TRWTF.
-
-
Hmm… In that case, I propose a new User Agent string, that all browsers should adopt immediately:
-
Hmm… In that case, I propose a new User Agent string, that all browsers should adopt immediately:
SockBot/2.11.0 (Cheery Chiffon; owner:accalia; user:raceprouk)
FTFY ;-)
-
I propose a new User Agent string,
Seconded
but only after such time all browsers and platforms are identical
-
but only after such time all browsers and platforms are identical
They already all claim to be Mozilla, and Edge declares itself running on Android even though there's no Android build, so…
-
Hmmmm, I see your point, and it is not what I thought it was....please, allow me to clarify...
but only after such time that all browsers for all platforms parse, process, render or otherwise chew any web page and it's a associated data (regardless of the flow of direction)
are identicalin an identical mannerKTHXBYE
-
I see your point,
Yes. it seems the we (Users) are little more than collateral damage in some sort of pissing contest where the protagonists are either shouting "I am the biggest and the best", or "Pick me!, Pick me!" or similar.
My understanding of the User Agent String is that it provides the Hosting Server with a clue with what / whom it is talking to. So that a properly framed response could be made. If the Browser's are going to lie about their "size", then we are better of without them
-
I've proposed deprecating it for all HTML5 devices (and replacing it with a standard legacy string) before. I think it would help.
If necessary we could replace it with a few headers indicating features.
Bandwidth-Restrict: true Screen-Size: handheld HTML-Implementation-Date: 2015-01-01
or divide devices into standard categories (including which characteristics each must have)
UA-Type: bot
UA-Type: lightweight
UA-Type: full
UA-Type: textonly
(for when Richard Stallman browses gnu.org (and also for blind people (edit: 'd dkf))
-
UA-Type: audio
would actually be of some use. One of the professors at work is blind, and he's quite serious about wanting programs and websites to be accessible by people without the sense of sight.
-
UA-Type: audio would actually be of some use
And then something else would be useful, and UA sniffing would start happening again and the whole cycle would repeat
-
That's why it should be capability based, not identity based.
-
-
So what do you want to use for a bot that needs to work despite the server aggressively blocking bots?
-
-
OK, I have no idea how that happened. I've never been to that site and don't know what it is.
Actually, I was connected to a TeamViewer session at the time. I suppose the remote PC could have put that on their clipboard between me copying the link and pasting it in here.
-
Sure, we do that
There was one driver that returned TRUE when you called DoesDriverSupport(GUID_XYZ), but when DirectDraw tried to use that capability, it failed, and in a pretty spectacular manner.
(And in line with Microsoft's policies, they fixed the driver despite it being explicitly broken. Why even bother making a driver, they should have released an empty file and let MS do the whole implementation as a "workaround")
If a browser asks for a version of the page that's not appropriate (e.g. claims to support some other scripting language other than Javascript but doesn't), the user will try the same URL with another browser and see that it works, and rightfully blame the browser, so no problem here.
I suppose serving a broken version to a browser because it supports different features could be a problem. But I don't think that would happen often. Browsers running on the same platform would most likely send the same tags.
-
the user will try the same URL with another browser and see that it works, and rightfully blame the browser
If they're savvy enough to realise that "the internet" is not the same as "the blue E on my desktop". Most users will blame the website,
-
Most users will blame the website,
Our experience is that if some external website doesn't work (including because the site is just down or the network to the user's building is out) they blame our local website operator. Despite the fact that they have nothing to do with it at all.
-
If they're savvy enough to realise that "the internet" is not the same as "the blue E on my desktop".
-
"the blue E on my desktop"
who didn't changed the chrome/firefox icon for the blue e to avoid explaining everything to a computer illiterate ?
-
"the blue E on my
desktopcomputer"
No lUser calls it "the desktop".
Besides, it says "Internet" right on it! Obviously it's the Internet!
-
Actually, AFTER explaining it and the dumb f*** still using IE.
-
of course. few people start so cynic. we mostly do it before trying to explain it to at least one user