Should Sec-UA-Arch define canonical names for popular architectures, or have a registry?

[othermaciej]

In current user agent strings, it's hard to make use of CPU architecture without reference to platform.

For example, popular browser UA strings refer to the x86-64 architecture as x86_64 on Linux, x64 on Windows, and Intel on Macs. To make it reasonable and useful to request Sec-UA-Arch by itself, there probably needs to be a consistent name for any given CPU architecture. To achieve this, the spec either needs to predefine some, or point to a registry.

You could just say that browsers ought to use whatever architecture name they send in the UA string, and clients just have to deal with multiple synonyms for the same architecture, but that misses a potential one-time opportunity for a useful cleanup.

(Note though that in #58 I suggest dropping this field, or allowing it to be blank or fictional, for browsers that chose not to expose the true CPU architecture at all.)

[mcatanzaro]

For example, popular browser UA strings refer to the x86-64 architecture as x86_64 on Linux, x64 on Windows, and Intel on Macs.

Or on FreeBSD: amd64

[tresf]

Or on FreeBSD: amd64

I've made this similar point here: https://github.com/WICG/ua-client-hints/pull/106/files#r428897514 (Edit: Github won't link a resolved conversation, you'll have to expand and scroll, sorry).

[othermaciej]

Agreed that this is resolved by #106.