Gervase Markham wrote: > So perhaps the right thing to do is to remove the Firefox name from the > UA string? If Firefox itself did it, the web would need to pay attention.
This seems like a great idea to me. The only good reason I can see to not do this is that there are some sites that might want to sniff out the product for the purpose of delivering appropriate extensions (AMO, Google toolbar, etc). I was discussing this with Sander and he suggested that the app's GUID be exposed as part of the user agent (or I guess as another |naviagator| property) so that sites with interest in delivering extensions could sniff that out (if they're making extensions, they'd know that anyway). A webmaster that really wanted to sniff out firefox and block non-firefox apps could still do so, but it would be harder and perhaps too hard for the low-IQ webmasters that typically use sniffing now. I guess some "helpful" person might still add GUID sniffing as part of a larger browser sniffing JS library and then we're back to square one. Anyway, as a user and developer of SeaMonkey (which is as far as I know afflicted by all the same boneheaded sites that Camino is), I would oppose putting Firefox in the UA (like Firefox? I hope not!). And I would welcome the removal of the product name from the UA. -- Andrew Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sens.buffalo.edu/~ajs42/ _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
