|UA concerns||Wil Clouser||8/30/12 2:29 PM|
I just saw bug 787054 which is proposing adjusting our User Agent on a
per-site basis using a white list. I didn't see a discussion about this
but would like to hear the reasoning behind it.
Maintaining a white list sounds like a lot of work (and doesn't scale
well). Off the top of my head:
- Who is maintaining the list? What are the criteria to get on the list?
- As a developer how do I get on/off the list?
- How does the list get updated?
- Is there a public submission to get sites on the list?
- Is there a strategy to get sites off the list? (I assume we don't
want to maintain the list forever)
- How are we communicating this to developers? If someone maintains
site.com (which is on the list) they will get different results visiting
dev.site.com which will be hard to track down.
|Re: UA concerns||Guillermo López||8/31/12 9:04 AM|
2012/8/30 Wil Clouser <wclo...@mozilla.com>
I'd love to see that too.
Guillermo López [willyaranda]. Mozilla Reps Mentor.
Certified Mozillian: https://mozillians.org/willyaranda
|Re: UA concerns||Fabrice Desre||8/31/12 9:22 AM|
On 08/31/2012 09:04 AM, Guillermo López wrote:Initially we removed the "Android" token from the UA string on b2g:
- pros : this is the right thing to do.
- cons : some sites, including prominent ones, are sending us wap-era
mobile content. That makes the user experience crappy.
This change was backed out, which means that we now get nice mobile
content, but claiming to be android is far from ideal. For instance,
some site offer to install their android app.
This bug is an attempt at providing a pragmatic solution, to have nice
content while we sort out the issue with broken sites (we have direct
channels to talk with most of them). I don't expect the list to be huge,
so maintaining a server side list may be overkill.
|Re: UA concerns||Lawrence Mandel||8/31/12 9:42 AM|
> I just saw bug 787054 which is proposing adjusting our User Agent onThere are certain sites on the Web that simply must work in Firefox OS in order to deliver a compelling experience. There is an ongoing debate about what UA to use for Firefox OS. Including the "Android" token across the board leads to issues such as being prompted to install Android apps and compromising our evangelism efforts for Firefox OS. Adjusting our UA on a per-site basis is a tactic that we are considering to ensure that we have a way to get the content that our platform requires if our evangelism efforts are not successful in the time that we have.
The list owner has not yet been determined. I think product (Chris) should have input. The decision about adding a site to the list needs to come after we have investigated the cause of issues and determined that we cannot solve them by another means. Note that we cannot simply spoof the UA to solve the mobile Web's problems. There are issues with Webkit CSS and DOM property usage that this tactic alone will not resolve.
Criteria for adding a site to the list should include:
- the site is a must have experience for the platform (Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
- evangelism efforts have not proved successful or the company will not be able to make the updates by the launch (Orkut may fall into this category)
We should be actively working with the sites on the list to get them off of it.
Jason had a proposal in bug 787054 to update the list in a similar fashion to how we update our blocklist.
No. I don't think that we should take a public submission. The list of sites should be restricted to those that we know are must haves.
Yes. As I said above, we should actively be working with sites to get them off of the list.
I don't think this is an issue if we limit the list to a very select group of sites.
|Re: UA concerns||Matthew Phillips||8/31/12 9:53 PM|
Fabrice, what is wrong with sites offering the user to download an Android app? Is it that this shows up on B2G as well?
|Re: UA concerns||Fabrice Desré||9/1/12 4:23 AM|
On 08/31/2012 09:53 PM, phill...@gmail.com wrote:Yes. The changes we are talking about here are only for b2g. No changes
were made to Firefox Android.
|Re: UA concerns||Fabrice Desré||9/12/12 9:58 AM|
> That needs to be worked out; I'd expect the B2G and evangelism teams to
> maintain it. I'm all for criteria which keep it short, and involve
> communicating with the site first.
Do you think we can go with an in-product list or that this list must be
hosted somewhere and just cached locally?
|Re: UA concerns||Fabrice Desré||9/12/12 1:48 PM|
On 09/12/2012 11:02 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> The uncertainty about what our UA will be is causing problems for our
> evangelism team and our partners. And yet we can't settle on the
> "proper" UA until we have a mechanism in place for overriding it. So I
> think we need to get a mechanism in place as soon as possible, even if
> it's an in-product list, and then we can evaluate the case for a hosted
> list (with all the necessary infra) after that.
I can come up with a patch quickly if I have a list of sites and the UA
we want to serve them. Who can provide that?
|Re: UA concerns||Lawrence Mandel||9/13/12 2:13 AM|
> > The uncertainty about what our UA will be is causing problems forI think that B2G product management should define the key sites/apps that must work on the platform for the initial launch in Brazil. The mobile Web compatibility team can then provide the details about which of those sites should be sent a specific UA.
Note that it is possible that we will need to send a different UA (Android or iPhone) to different sites.