On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:06:18PM -0400, Adam L. Peller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/31/07, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:18:31AM -0400, Adam L. Peller <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And what next ? Add "like Safari/3.0", "like Opera/9.0" whenever that > > becomes necessary ? Let's just stop the user agent madness. > > Not sure I follow... add them to IceWeasel? Certainly not. Your > browser isn't forked off Safari or Opera source code, is it? The > community's persistent requests to add Firefox to the IceWeasel user > agent isn't about cloaking, the way IE and Opera might use Mozilla or > Gecko keywords, it's about showing the browser's true origins -- > consistent with the HTTP spec, I believe.
Look at Safari. Apple felt it needed to have "Gecko" somewhere in the user agent string, so it now has "like Gecko" in it. So what's next for them ? Adding Firefox, too ? What about when Safari gets enough visibility that for some reason people need to have "Safari" somewhere in the UA in Firefox ? > Yeah, the whole user agent thing is ugly, but substituting a keyword > in user-agent is just not logical. By your logic, you shouldn't have > added IceWeasel to the string in the first place. Surely, you don't > want people to write code conditionalized on your browser, which > sounds like it's supposed to be functionally identical to Firefox? In > this case, just leave the original user-agent string in tact and do no > harm :-) It's about what it *is* not what its origin are. So, "in my logic", it doesn't make sense to leave Firefox in the user agent string while the browser is not branded so. And the move from Camino to add Firefox in its UA is just plain dumb. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
