On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:26 PM Mike Hommey <m...@glandium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 01:51:07PM +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > Does reporting "Linux aarch64" have significant concrete benefits to > > users? Would actual presently-existing app download pages break if, > > for privacy, we always reported "Linux x86_64" on Linux regardless of > > the actual CPU architecture (or reported it on anything but 32-bit > > x86)? > > Would not exposing the CPU architecture be an option? Are UA sniffers > expecting the UA format to include the CPU architecture?
In general, changing the format of the UA string is always riskier than freezing parts to some value that has been common in the past. I think finding out whether removal would be Web compatible is not worth the risk, churn, cost, and time investment. The attempt to take away the Gecko date was a costly episode of churn that left us with weird divergence between the desktop and mobile Gecko tokens. As far as removals from the UA string go, the main success is the removal of the crypto level token, but that removed an entire between-semicolons item from the middle of the list. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@mozilla.com _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
