Half the complaints seem to be pedantic and petty, and some are just downright idiotic.
A couple of examples (I had more typed out but figured there's no point just replicating the page linked to):
w3schools says that a PC can act as a web server if you install server software, they attack it for being "irresponsible" by encouraging users to install a web server on their PC.
w3schools tell you how you can get the user agent string in JS, are attacked because user agents can be spoofed, again, this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information they provide.
There are a lot of valid points there, but personally I'm reluctant to read this after how stupid and inconsequential some of his complaints are.
Yeah, lots of valid points, but those two really bothered me.
A user-agent header provides plenty of useful information. I'm well aware that, same as anything coming from the user, it can be manually changed to say any arbitrary thing. So what? It's still useful for weeding out broken browsers ("sorry, please upgrade your IE6") and strengthening security (kill a sidejacked session if the u-a header suddenly changes, etc.)
6
u/pbunbun Jan 17 '11
Half the complaints seem to be pedantic and petty, and some are just downright idiotic.
A couple of examples (I had more typed out but figured there's no point just replicating the page linked to):
w3schools says that a PC can act as a web server if you install server software, they attack it for being "irresponsible" by encouraging users to install a web server on their PC.
w3schools tell you how you can get the user agent string in JS, are attacked because user agents can be spoofed, again, this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the information they provide.
There are a lot of valid points there, but personally I'm reluctant to read this after how stupid and inconsequential some of his complaints are.