The whole Web industry decided long ago that doing things in a
common-sense way would be harmful to business, which thrives on fear,
uncertainty and doubt. DHTML hackers need employment, and so they write
complex, barely-functioning browser detection JavaScript. If user agent
strings were meaningful, then we would need less browser detection
scripts, and thus less DHTML hackers. Thus DHTML hackers lobby heavily
for cryptic and meaningless user agent strings.
It's the same sort of nonsense we've seen from C programmers for decades.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Randall J. Parr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I propose the following for Mozilla user agent strings (I'll give my
> > reasons below):
> > Mozilla 1.0 should be released with the user-agent string Mozilla/5.1
> > and subsequent releases should be names similarly:
> > Mozilla/5.11 for release 1.1, 5.12 for 1.2, Mozilla/5.2 for moz 2.0, etc
> >
>
> *I* like your general plan here; why not use Mozilla/5.1.1, etc. to make a
> slightly more direct connection to the Mozilla version number?
>
> R.Parr
> Temporal Arts
>
>
