Andrew Schultz pisze: > Gervase Markham wrote: >> So perhaps the right thing to do is to remove the Firefox name from >> the UA string? If Firefox itself did it, the web would need to pay >> attention. > > This seems like a great idea to me. The only good reason I can see to > not do this is that there are some sites that might want to sniff out > the product for the purpose of delivering appropriate extensions (AMO, > Google toolbar, etc). I was discussing this with Sander and he > suggested that the app's GUID be exposed as part of the user agent (or I > guess as another |naviagator| property) so that sites with interest in > delivering extensions could sniff that out (if they're making > extensions, they'd know that anyway).
A simpler solution, I think, would be to drop "Firefox/x.x.x.x" from the UA string, but leave the product name in place for other apps (Camino, SeaMonkey, Thunderbird). Basically, let's re-use the late Mozilla Suite's UA string for Firefox. So, imagine we had implemented this solution in 1.8. Firefox 2.0.0.4 with this scheme would just have been: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; pl; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/2007051502 but Camino's UA string wouldn't need any changes: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; pl; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070509 Camino/1.5 (MultiLang) This way, stats companies can still easily differentiate between Firefox and non-Firefox apps (so you won't serve a SeaMonkey extension to a Firefox user), but ignorant web developers would need to specifically block Camino or SeaMonkey. In a sense, this is what Camino developers wanted - full Firefox UA string in the Camino one. ;-) -- Marek Stepien [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
