On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:51:40AM +0800, Philip Chee wrote: > On 28/01/2015 01:29, Martin Thomson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Daniel Stenberg <dan...@haxx.se> wrote: > > > >> I personally think it would be wrong to do it in connection with HTTP/2 > >> since it'll bring a bunch of unrelated breakage to be associated with the > >> protocol bump. > > > > > > I'd rather we didn't for similar reasons. > > > > If we're interested in this, maybe run an experiment where Nightly offers a > > User-Agent of just "Nightly". See how that goes. I don't expect much > > success unfortunately; UA detection is still in pretty wide use, and not > > always for the wrong reasons (you won't have to search back far on > > mozilla-google-discuss for an example). > > Pale Moon tried to do something similar. It was rather impressive how > much of the web breaks when you do that. That change was backed out in > haste.
Simply not including "Firefox" can break things for Gecko-based browsers. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
