Judson Valeski wrote: >>Frankly I don't know why sites set "Mozilla/5.0" in stone, Netscape released >>all manner of "Mozilla/4.xx" versions without causing problems.
> > We determined that the evangelism effort to get all the sites that do > poor/broken UA string parsing, to fix themselves (Arun has a doc w/ > steps on how to properly parse, > http://developer.netscape.com/evangelism/docs/articles/find-gecko/ ) was > not going to be feasible. We tried messing w/ the "mozilla" token, and > got too large an influx of bugs to cope. [snip] >>Well, not "Seamonkey". That was Netscape's codename for 6.0 and has a bit of >>a bad taste around here (as does this newsgroup's name). I'd still rather >>make it "Mozilla/5.0.9.7+" or some variant, though. >> > "Mozilla/5.0.9.7.+" will break too many sites unfortunately. We tried > adding dots and numbers, even non-digits; all fell on their faces. If the hard way is the only right way, I say do it the hard way. Sure, it will break some sites, but once Mozilla gets popular, /they/ will have to change. Mozilla should have the right to decide it's own user-agent string. Stupid people making broken sites aren't a good reason not to make a good UA string. -- /Jonas
