On 26/09/12 14:05, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
This is likely to be a stupid question, but: posted where?
I can now say: in this group. Sorry for the delay :-) Dodgy wifi.
Gerv
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.m
Am Donnerstag, 13. September 2012 08:28:23 UTC+2 schrieb Jonas Sicking:
> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
>
> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
>
> free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens in UA
>
> strings
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> I would prefer to look at the specific problems introduced with the OS
> agnostic UA (drop the "Android" token) and, if a small subset need a
> workaround, use the whitelist mechanism to solve this for v1.
I think this is the reasonable
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> I've just posted a proposal for a way forward and a policy for adding sites
> to the list.
This is likely to be a stupid question, but: posted where?
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
dev-platform mailing li
On 25/09/12 17:57, Jason Smith wrote:
Don't know. We probably should define a strategy of how we're going to
get web content to move towards supporting the UA without the platform
identifier, so that we don't get endlessly stuck with Android in the UA
for FF OS in the long term.
I've just poste
Hi Gerv,
Don't know. We probably should define a strategy of how we're going to
get web content to move towards supporting the UA without the platform
identifier, so that we don't get endlessly stuck with Android in the UA
for FF OS in the long term.
For the v1 shipment - I originally nomina
> > 3. For v1, we probably need to still stick to the original plan for
> > the UA that does include Android in the UA, even though that's
> > sub-optimal to receive Android specific content. We should move to
> > the optimal UA in long-term though without the platform identifier.
>
> Do we really
On 24/09/12 20:06, Jason Smith wrote:
3. For v1, we probably need to still stick to the original plan for
the UA that does include Android in the UA, even though that's
sub-optimal to receive Android specific content. We should move to
the optimal UA in long-term though without the platform ident
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 6:02:35 PM UTC-7, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Benoit Jacob
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I would like to +1 on Henri's answer to make it clear that the outcome
>
> > of this thread is not quite a nod to go ahead.
>
>
>
> I'd upgrade yo
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
>
> I would like to +1 on Henri's answer to make it clear that the outcome
> of this thread is not quite a nod to go ahead.
I'd upgrade your "not quite" to "definitely not" :)
We got a bit distracted by the net neutrality comparison, but I'd
2012/9/21 Henri Sivonen :
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Indeed. I think this is a somewhat different issue than net
>> neutrality. With net neutrality there's a middle party trying to build
>> a business model by disrupting the traffic between a user and the
>> content
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Indeed. I think this is a somewhat different issue than net
> neutrality. With net neutrality there's a middle party trying to build
> a business model by disrupting the traffic between a user and the
> content the user is accessing.
>
> Here
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Benjamin Smedberg
wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 2:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
FWIW, when preferential content access is tied to ISP instead
On 9/19/2012 2:12 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
FWIW, when preferential content access is tied to ISP instead of
hardware brand, Mozilla has gone as far as sending letters to D.C.
against su
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> FWIW, when preferential content access is tied to ISP instead of
>> hardware brand, Mozilla has gone as far as sending letters to D.C.
>> against such tying. (Yes, preferred access by
On 9/18/12 1:37 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I think this is the worst abuse of a UA string I've ever heard of.
Actually, I would say this is one of the stronger use cases that I've
seen for UA sniffing.
...
So it seems to me that not putting hardware tokens in the UA string
effectively disables
Jonas Sicking schrieb:
For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to
the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS
is running.
I think using the UA is surely the wrong place for this. If we allow the
models that want to be achieved with this at a
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Say that HTC wants to
>> market their phones towards soccer enthusiasts. They could do this by
>> paying the local soccer league access to a set of games which will be
>> streamed fro
Mike Hommey schrieb:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:17:16PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
(Remember Web sites in the 1990s that blocked access from
browsers that the authors hadn't tested. Those were not cool.)
Such sites still exist, and they still aren't cool.
Right, just nowadays Firefox is usu
On 18/09/12 09:48, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I don't think there's a "good detection practice" for detecting what
hardware the user is running.
So either:
1) we need to invent one; or
2) we think that there is no legitimate use for the information (or
perhaps that there are a small number, but th
On 18/09/12 09:37, Jonas Sicking wrote:
So it seems to me that not putting hardware tokens in the UA string
effectively disables this business model.
I'm not sure that's true. Having no way to detect the underlying
hardware platform effectively disables this business model - or perhaps,
"busi
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:17:16PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > * App stores only want to deliver applications to devices which they
> > know will run on the device.
>
> This would make sense in an Apple-esque walled garden with relativel
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Say that HTC wants to
> market their phones towards soccer enthusiasts. They could do this by
> paying the local soccer league access to a set of games which will be
> streamed from HTCs website.
...
> I can't say that I hold this business m
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> * App stores only want to deliver applications to devices which they
> know will run on the device.
This would make sense in an Apple-esque walled garden with relatively
few different device models. However, if Mozilla's app initiative is
su
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Since Firefox OS is openly accessible to hardware vendors, wouldn't it
> be easy for them to override any decision made by Mozilla if they or
> their content partners would prefer it that way?
The code is available, but it doesn't follow
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to
> the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS
> is running.
We already had this debate for Firefox for Android. I think we should
apply the same
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 13/09/12 07:27, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
>> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
>> free. One way that this is implemented is by looking fo
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
>> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
>> free. One way that this is implement
On 13/09/12 07:27, Jonas Sicking wrote:
* Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens in UA
strings and serve content based on this. This is obvio
2012/9/13 Nicholas Nethercote :
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
>> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
>> free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens i
On 09/13/12 02:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to
> the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS
> is running.
I am very far from an expert here, but I recall during some discussions
a few years ago that spec
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> * Some content providers strike deals with hardware manufacturers
> which allow devices made by the manufacturer to access content for
> free. One way that this is implemented is by looking for tokens in UA
> strings and serve content based
> > Let me know what you think.
>
> Since Firefox OS is openly accessible to hardware vendors, wouldn't
> it
> be easy for them to override any decision made by Mozilla if they or
> their content partners would prefer it that way?
We have the ability to set the terms for use of the Firefox brand.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Let me know what you think.
Since Firefox OS is openly accessible to hardware vendors, wouldn't it
be easy for them to override any decision made by Mozilla if they or
their content partners would prefer it that way?
Putting hardware tokens
> > Hi All,
> >
> > For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens
> > to
> > the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox
> > OS
> > is running.
> >
>
> During the UA discussions for Firefox for Android we explicitly
> decided not
> to do this (after much
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> For Firefox OS, we are getting requests from partners to add tokens to
> the UA string which identify the hardware device on which Firefox OS
> is running.
>
During the UA discussions for Firefox for Android we explicitly decide
36 matches
Mail list logo
