Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Jun 2010 18:07 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 429676
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Let ads die. Period.
by Neolander on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:14
in reply to "RE[5]: Let ads die. Period."
AFAIK Chrome doesn't identify itself as Safari. It just identifies that it's webkit.
The first link when searching "chrome user agent" on google does not agree with you :
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-user-agent/
And as for webkit's tags, they're all open source and submitted to w3c - which, at the end of the day is preferable to waiting for the epically slow w3c to draft their own specs and massively more preferable to using Flash in the mean time.
So in the end you're just re-creating the Flash issue.
Because you can freely read about the Flash spec, the issue is that Adobe change it whenever they want, while screwing up everyone who does not use their implementation. There's the same issue for webkit tags : the spec is freely readable, but people from the webkit project may change it whenever they want...
Edited 2010-06-11 12:32 UTC
RE[7]: Let ads die. Period.
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:28
in reply to "RE[6]: Let ads die. Period."
The first link when searching "chrome user agent" on google does not agree with you : http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-user-agent//
Ok, now lets look at more than one build of Chrome:
http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/Chrome/
As you can see every single version identifies itself as Chrome with a few also adding Safari in there.
This is little different to how many other browsers worked when they were new and/or held small market shares.
So in the end you're just re-creating the Flash issue. Because you can freely read about the Flash spec, the issue is that Adobe change it whenever they want, while screwing up everyone who does not use their implementation. There's the same issue for webkit tags : the spec is freely readable, but people from the webkit project may change it whenever they want, and hence...
Only if we're complacent. The technology does need to move forward and much as I dislike Apple on the whole, they're doing a good job with HTML5. Ignoring Apple's enhancements entirely is somewhat like cutting your nose of to spite your face. A better approach would be to adopt with caution.
It's also worth noting that Flash is an open spec, not open source. Where as webkit /IS/ open source thus can be forked at any time if people don't like Apple's direction.





Member since:
2007-03-26
AFAIK Chrome doesn't identify itself as Safari. It just identifies that it's webkit.
And as for webkit's tags, they're all open source and submitted to w3c - which, at the end of the day is preferable to waiting for the epically slow w3c to draft their own specs and massively more preferable to using Flash in the mean time.