Your absolutly right. There probably is no justification that can account for all the problems that would be caused.
I have to say its very strange and confusing seeing a UA that starts out saying Mozilla 5 and ends saying its is revision 0.9.4. If the revision number is going to stay, and I don't see anything happening that will change that, then I would say the revison number in say Netscape 6.2 should have been 5.0.9.4 (unless mozilla.org intends its 1.0.0 to be Mozilla 6, in that case Netscape 6.2 should have been 5.9.4.). Kevin Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > >> Daniel Veditz wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey: >> >>> Jeremy M. Dolan wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>>> Shouldn't dbaron be involved in the discussion here? >>> >>> >>> >>> Still enjoying his holidays I expect, or gearing up for school. I >>> hope he >>> does get involved, but if he never shows up it's not required. For >>> something >>> this fundamental to the way mozilla is seen we probably need >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ultimately. >> >> >> >> So, [EMAIL PROTECTED], what do you say? Are you in favor of a change >> of User-Agent strings? There's not much point in debating this otherwise. >> >> If it is going to be changed, it'd better happen soon, before we get >> too close to 1.0. >> >> So could some of you please come to the newsgroup and comment? >> > > In general, UA changes are bad since they affect many many sites and > applications on those sites. Someone had better come up with a damn > fine reason. I've been following the thread on the periphery and I > haven't seen any reason to make a change yet. > > --Chris >
