Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 07:01:30PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> > I would argue that if the value of your User-Agent string affects >> > browsing habits, then the bug is with the website, not the browser. >> >> This is a battle you, and anyone else who thinks like you, is going >> to >> lose. Opera has had user agent munging for it's entire existence >> precisely >> because of these bugs in the website. That's 10 years and counting. It >> also isn't just some rinky-dink sites that exclude based on the user >> string. Banks, large news sites, places people generally want to visit on >> a daily >> basis do so. Quite frankly Firefox is lucky to often be on the inside of >> that blockade. > > the state of washington, which has really good online stuff, bombs on > the iceweasel string. Specifically the "payment voucher" (which is > from their perspective one of the most important things to get right) > from the sales tax reporting website gets all munched when it sees the > iceweasel user-agent string. I emailed them about it (they are > fantastic by the way and really happy to hear that there are other > OSes using their site. they even have both a "linux" and "other" > option for the OS when filing tech support emails through the webpage) > and that was indeed the issue -- unrecognised user-agent string. Now, > why they would put a very simple, text only, page into a setup that > depends on user-agent string is beyond me, but... there it is.
That's funny, too. Might want to dig deeper on that one, I know Oregon, and I could have sworn Washington, considers browser bias to be in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act, since you can't reasonably expect a blind person to use a GUI web browser. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]