Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: "Matt Kruse" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:37:02 -0500
Richard Cornford wrote:
Probably in part because we have discussed the subject before and your
re-raising the same question implies that you were not interested in
the responses you got last time:-
I've not seen previous replies on the topic.
1. As the issue applies to all Windows browsers that employ the native
Windows select GUI component to represent HTML select elements
I'm not sure that is true. A browser could easily be written in Windows
using native controls which do not overlap other objects in the page. It is
merely a side-effect of bad programming in IE that is at fault.
the
problem has nothing to do with IE as such but instead determining
whether the particular UA is using that component.
I believe that is a false statement.
Which may be
detectable in some environments as that component is notorious for not
accepting particular CSS assignments and its refusal to accept them
may have manifestations in the DOM.
But that is a case where you are testing one feature and then inferring
another.
2. It is only worth considering not using the IFRAME even when it is
not necessary if its use is harmful
It cannot be assumed that there is no browser where using the iframe would
be a problem, but it would probably be a safe assumption AFAIK.
3. The IFRAME shim is not the only technique for handling the burn
through issue.
True, but it seems to be the best, IMO.
I think there are cases where browser sniffing is justified,Trying to justify something that doesn't work (to the extent of being
even if not completely accurate. I'd like to be proven wrong ;)
catastrophically wrong in worst cases) is hardly a reasonable response
to finding that the more reliable alternative cannot cover 100% of
cases.
I'm talking only about the cases which cannot be covered by the more
reliable alternative.
--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Richard Cornford
- Super Z of form elements
- From: VK
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- References:
- Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: VK
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: RobG
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: RobG
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: VK
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: VK
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: VK
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Randy Webb
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Matt Kruse
- Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- From: Richard Cornford
- Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- Prev by Date: Re: calling a method from a method
- Next by Date: Re: Safari: img within a link object?
- Previous by thread: Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?
- Next by thread: Super Z of form elements
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|