• @reddig33
    72•5 months 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.

    • stinerman [Ohio]English
      21•5 months ago

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    • @9point6
      13•5 months 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

  • @SanctusEnglish
    43•5 months ago

    If only web standards were a thing

  • mommykinkEnglish
    4•5 months ago

    Hmm had no idea this existed, thanks for sharing

  • JackbyDevEnglish
    2•5 months ago

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

    • @silverbowling
      5•5 months 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

      • JackbyDevEnglish
        2•5 months ago

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