<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED INVALID - Typekit fonts do not work"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147296#c19">Comment # 19</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED INVALID - Typekit fonts do not work"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147296">bug 147296</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mrobinson@webkit.org" title="Martin Robinson <mrobinson@webkit.org>"> <span class="fn">Martin Robinson</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=147296#c16">comment #16</a>)
<span class="quote">> This is the never ending story, we switched to Safari UA to fix a lot of
> sites trying to use chromium specific stuff. No matter what UA we use, there
> will always be broken sites. However, since we switched to Safari we have
> fewer problems, and I agree with Michael that switching back to chrome would
> make our quirk list longer.</span >
The reason I lean more toward the Chromey user agent is that (as far as I recall), the failures we have seen with it are individual sites. We can add quirks for individual sites. Meanwhile, the failures we see with the Safari one are in frameworks. We cannot add quirks for frameworks, because they are embedded in many web sites and the quirks code cannot detect that. Perhaps there is indeed a framework that fails with the Chromey user-agent. In that case, I suppose we should pick the one that breaks the least number of sites.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>