Hi there, On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: > I see. That's unfortunate. I don't really know the best path forward here. > I'm inclined to agree with Alexey that we should at least try to standardize > this before committing code. It's not clear to me where this should be > specced. Easiest path forward is to make this proposal to both > [email protected] for the HTML spec and [email protected] for the CSS Device > Adaptation spec.
I will pass it by the CSS Device Adaptation spec first as I really think it fits there. > We'll see what the response there is and can decide what to do next based > off that response. Does that sound OK? I think we will add a feature flag for now, together with layout tests for a document with XHTML-MP doctype using and not using fixed layouting. > I'm reluctant to make a change like this, but it sounds like there might not > be a better choice. One concern I have is how many sites would break due to > this behavior? For example, will this fix sites on N9, but break them on > Android/iOS or are these wapforum doctypes never sent to Android/iOS because > of UA-sniffing? It can only break browsers respecting the viewport meta and using fixed layouting in some way, those currently mobile browsers. As far as I heard Android and iOS are using similar tricks but they seldom get the pages due to UA sniffing. I already tried contacting the Android team. Cheers, Kenneth > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Nokia actually looked into this about a year ago and we homogenized >> our UA strings across our different devices, so that we could start to >> tell contents providers to give us the best content supported by our >> browsers. Part of this work was actually simplifying our UA string so >> much as possible and it is actually quite similar to what you are >> using today. >> >> The user agent for the N9 browser, for instance, is: >> >> Mozilla/5.0 (MeeGo; NokiaN9) AppleWebKit/534.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) >> NokiaBrowser/8.5.0 Mobile Safari/534.13 >> >> The problem is not just the user agent. For instance the user agent is >> known by your Google, and we did pass validation for Tier 1 YouTube >> content, but the Google search team, as far as I heard, decided that >> we didn't have enough market penetration for them to turn on Tier 1 >> content for us, and serves us the XHTML-MP (Tier 3?) content instead. >> >> As far as I understand, the decision comes from that team not wanting >> to dedicate resources to make sure the Tier 1 content keeps working on >> our device. I totally understand their reasoning and decision, but it >> is a saddens me given the promise of the open web and HTML5. It is >> even more sad that this is not a unique case and it will only be >> solved the day content providers stop looking at the user agent >> strings. >> >> Kenneth >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ojan Vafai <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Instead of UA faking, is it possible for you to pick an actual UA string >> > that is more compatible with the web at large? For Chromium we >> > experimented >> > with making the most minimal UA string possible without a big loss in >> > web >> > compatibility. To our disappointment, we found we had to match the >> > Safari UA >> > string almost exactly. Our current UA string is "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux >> > x86_64) AppleWebKit/536.6 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/20.0.1096.1 >> > Safari/536.6". The parts that we found to be safe to change are the >> > platform >> > names in the first sent of parenthesis. The version number after >> > AppleWebKit. And the Chrome/versionNumber section. Even getting rid of >> > the >> > Safari/versionNumber caused us significant web compatibility problems. >> > >> > That said, we did all this testing in 2008. The web may have changed >> > considerably since then. In either case, if your UA string diverges too >> > much, I expect this problem will just be the tip of the iceberg of >> > compatibility problems you'll encounter. So it might be worth >> > considering >> > changing your UA string before trying to add new DocType switching >> > behavior. >> > >> > Ojan >> > >> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Hugo Parente Lima >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 04, 2012 10:11:07 AM Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> >> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen < >> >> > >> >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > This is not supporting XHTML-MP, as we are not implementing >> >> > > anything >> >> > > special to support it. We are basically showing the content as it >> >> > > was >> >> > > HTML5 and that solves most real use-cases. Injecting a proper >> >> > > viewport >> >> > > configuration makes it also layout properly. >> >> > >> >> > Okay. Is this change observable by the page? Or more specifically, >> >> > can a >> >> > web page currently feature-detect whether a given browser support >> >> > XHTML-MP >> >> > by checking the size of the viewport? >> >> >> >> The page knows nothing, just as it knows nothing about the ~980 pixels >> >> used >> >> for the canvas width, it's a matter of change a magic value to the >> >> device- >> >> width to get websites better looking. >> >> >> >> I attached screenshots of MiniBrowser runnin with and without the patch >> >> using: >> >> >> >> MiniBrowser --window-size 480x720 http://m.yahoo.com >> >> >> >> Without patch (viewport of 980 pixels): >> >> https://bug-85425-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=140272 >> >> Patched (viewport of 880 pixels) >> >> https://bug-85425-attachments.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=140273 >> >> >> >> >> >> > If the answer is yes, then we'll be breaking the feature detection. >> >> > >> >> > Unfortunately most unknown mobile browsers tend to get lots of >> >> > >> >> > > XHTML-MP. Heck, we even get that for google.com on the Nokia N9 :-( >> >> > > as >> >> > > well as other high profile sites. >> >> > >> >> > Yeah, it's very unfortunate. >> >> > >> >> > This makes the sites render acceptable, until we can advocate the >> >> > >> >> > > sites to accept our user agent, something which we haven't always >> >> > > had >> >> > > luck with. Google for one didn't want to provide us the Tier 1 site >> >> > > of >> >> > > google.com on the N9, even though it works a lot better than the >> >> > > XHTML-MP version we are being served. I don't see this situation >> >> > > change any time soon. >> >> > >> >> > Can we work-around this issue by faking the user agent string? >> >> >> >> If you are working on your own browser you wont be telling every >> >> website >> >> that >> >> you are a iPhone forever, at least you will not be happy doing that. >> >> >> >> Regards. >> >> Hugo Parente Lima >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> webkit-dev mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > webkit-dev mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Kenneth Rohde Christiansen >> Senior Engineer >> Nokia Mobile Phones, Browser / WebKit team >> Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit.org >> >> http://codeposts.blogspot.com ﹆﹆﹆ > > -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer Nokia Mobile Phones, Browser / WebKit team Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit.org http://codeposts.blogspot.com ﹆﹆﹆ _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
