Gervase Markham wrote: > This is somewhat controversial, because historically the Mozilla > project's line on browser sniffing has been: > > 1) Don't sniff at all > 2) If you must sniff, use object sniffing > 3) In the rare cases that doesn't work, use the Gecko version
We haven't been very good at pushing this line, in my opinion, certainly not the third item. Does the Mozilla Foundation have evangelists on staff who go to sites and tell them that the Firefox developers say not to sniff for "Firefox"? Or are we hoping that site authors will listen to Camino, etc. users or developers who complain? If so, that's a silly hope, in my opinion. > - Is it OK if a site warns you that your browser has not been tested, > but allows you to continue anyway? It's better than the alternative of not allowing access at all, but definitely sub-par. > - What about sites (e.g. banks) for which lack of support for Camino is > a deliberate policy? I can't think of a good reason for this policy, to be honest. > - Does it matter how serious the problem is? I.e. total site blockage > vs. lack of flyout submenus on msnbc.com? Probably not to users, no. I really wish we _did_ randomize the product name from the very beginning, or not ship one at all. I think the fact that we have by-default undermines our attempts to evangelize point #3 above, even if we were trying to it. Which we aren't, that I can see. -Boris -Boris _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
