Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-25 Thread Enno Boland (Gottox)
Will fix this before releasing. Thanks! :D 2010/5/18 Marvin Vek : > Hey all, > > thought i'd throw up something i've been twisting my head around. > > The following resources describe what the User-Agent string should be: >        - RFC2616, sections 14.43, 3.8 >        - https://developer.mozill

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-19 Thread anonymous
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 01:56:22PM +0200, Marvin Vek wrote: > Hang on, do you suggest the code for sending the User-Agent string > should be removed, or have the User-Agent string empty by default? Is it possible to remove User-Agent completely without patching WebKit?

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-19 Thread Marvin Vek
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:16:20PM +0100, Nick wrote: > I've been using uzbl without much in the user agent field for a > month or two now (since finding eff's panopticlick info), and > haven't noticed any site fail for me. Granted I don't use many > ajax-heavy sites such as gmail which might be

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-19 Thread Nick
Quoth Marvin Vek: > It may be be a stupid requirement, the sad fact is that many websites > expect it, or act on it. I've been using uzbl without much in the user agent field for a month or two now (since finding eff's panopticlick info), and haven't noticed any site fail for me. Granted I don't

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread Marvin Vek
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:13:47PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > "User agents SHOULD include this field with requests." > > SHOULD: "This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore.." > > there is only one header that "MU

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread anonymous
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:13:47PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 5/18/10, Marvin Vek wrote: > >> the user agent string is unnecessary > > > > According to the RFC, it's required. > > "User agents SHOULD include this field with requests." > > SHOULD: "This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED",

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
On 5/18/10, Marvin Vek wrote: >> the user agent string is unnecessary > > According to the RFC, it's required. "User agents SHOULD include this field with requests." SHOULD: "This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread m g
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Marvin Vek wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:35:43PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> i think unnecessary headers are bad >> >> the user agent string is unnecessary > > According to the RFC, it's required. And some sites will redirect you to a page saying "Firefox

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread Marvin Vek
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:35:43PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > i think unnecessary headers are bad > > the user agent string is unnecessary According to the RFC, it's required. > also it reminds me the recent eff research > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/05/13 Interesting.. -- Marvi

Re: [dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
On 5/18/10, Marvin Vek wrote: > Would love to hear what you think about it, and especially if this > would be subject for implementation in the surf sources directly. i think unnecessary headers are bad the user agent string is unnecessary also it reminds me the recent eff research http://www.e

[dev] [surf] User-Agent string.

2010-05-18 Thread Marvin Vek
Hey all, thought i'd throw up something i've been twisting my head around. The following resources describe what the User-Agent string should be: - RFC2616, sections 14.43, 3.8 - https://developer.mozilla.org/en/User_Agent_Strings_Reference - http://www.useragentstring.com