Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:05:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:45:04PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >>>> John Goerzen wrote: >>>>> Firefox/x.y.z Iceweasel/x.y.z >>> Sounds too Firefoxy. >> What's the problem with that? I thought Iceweasel *was* Firefox for all >> practical purposes, modulo branding and usual distribution patches. >> >> Did we actually seriously fork Firefox since the rename? > > Simply putting Firefox like that in the UA can sound like it is > Firefox. And we still don't have the right to use the Firefox name on > something that doesn't bear the Firefox logo.
What is this "sound like"? We're talking about a technical string that is overall parsed by machines, not humans. What we need is something that machines can parse in an expected way. > I'd rather avoid yet another trademark issue, and if the (like > Firefox/x.y) works as well, it's safer to go that way. Some initial testing suggests that it helps -- I'd much rather see that than nothing, but I suspect it is not as good as the Flock approach, for instance. If it works for them, surely it would work for us. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org