Hi everyone! Unlike my other post in this thread, which was just meaningless ranting about stupid web developers, and which I probably shouldn't have posted anyway (sorry about wasting your time with it), this time I actually have something to say:
Jeremy M. Dolan wrote: >> The Mozilla version should *really* go in the existing Mozilla >> product token, creating a second token to cover the same product >> is just wrong. But when we messed with "Mozilla/5.0" sites started >> to break so the minor version parts were moved into the Mozilla >> product comment. > > Sorry, the Mozilla token is gone, long gone. It's now a disgusting > generic token used to indicate some vague level of agent featurefulness. > Don't believe me? Here's a quick grep of my access log. > > Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/2.2.1; Linux 2.4.9-pre4-xfs; X11; i686; en) > Mozilla/3.0 (Slurp/cat; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://www.inktomi.com/slurp.html) > Mozilla/4.7 (compatible; WhizBang) [snip-snip-snippety-snip] ...which is terrible. >>> I propose switching from: >>> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7+) Gecko/20020104 >>> to: >>> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) Gecko/20020104 Seamonkey/0.9.7+ >> >> Well, not "Seamonkey". That was Netscape's codename for 6.0 and has a bit of >> a bad taste around here (as does this newsgroup's name). > > What, then? Netscape used their code name for the token (Mozilla)... > only fitting Mozilla uses its code name (Seamonkey). (I'm afraid everyone will scream at me for saying this, but here goes...) How about simply dropping the word "Mozilla" from the User-Agent string in favor of Seamonkey? Seamonkey/0.9.7+ (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US+) Gecko/20020104 Maybe the build ID could even go in there too: Seamonkey/0.9.7.2002010409 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US+) Gecko/20020104 ...or something like that. It suddenly occured to me that this would be a wonderful thing do! Mozilla/1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 were all Netscape Navigator, but the Mozilla from mozilla.org is a completely different liza^h^h^h^hbrowser, so doesn't it deserve it's own unique name in the User-Agent string? Suddenly I'm in love with the word Seamonkey. :-) As you said, Jeremy, "Netscape used their code name for the token... only fitting Mozilla uses its code name". What do you think, everyone? Mozilla could be the browser to finally and all of this madness with browsers using "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; ..." instead of their real name. And ironically, it would do it by /not/ using it's real name! ;-) -- /Jonas
