• @reddig33
    link
    72
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    You shouldn’t have to do this. I blame W3C org and their ilk for putting the rendering engine, browser brand, and browser version in the response header. All your browser should be telling the site is the versions of html, css, and JavaScript it supports and whether it’s mobile or desktop.

    • @9point6
      link
      131 month ago

      versions of html, css, and JavaScript it supports

      Given the level of support a browser has for something is basically the browser’s version (there’s no such thing as a version number for JavaScript or CSS for example, there’s a spec that’s kinda versioned, but browsers don’t implement everything the same), you’ve basically just described user agent strings

      We have feature detection approaches today that make UA based browser detection generally unnecessary but the horse has already bolted on that now

  • @Sanctus
    link
    English
    431 month ago

    If only web standards were a thing

  • mommykink
    link
    English
    41 month ago

    Hmm had no idea this existed, thanks for sharing

  • JackbyDev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 month ago

    I believe the screenshot has a typo lol. The mask would be off if Firefox looks like Firefox.

    • @silverbowling
      link
      5
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      the screenshot shows them installing it on chrome, somehow. It doesn’t seem to exist for chrome. But if it did, off would be chrome and on would be firefox, which is what’s shown

      • JackbyDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        So the mask is on in the screenshot? Like, a mask on the mask? This is so meta wtf

  • lnxtx
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 month ago

    Like a dusty Internet Explorer mask.