"Jeremy M. Dolan" wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Ballard wrote: > > How about Gecko/NS-62.20011019 - that is, Gecko/BranchName.Timestamp > > Nope. NSGecko would be fine though. As far as 'BranchName.Timestamp', > that's up to Netscape, no reason to standardize it. Call it whatever > you want if you're changing the product and token.
No. The point is that it *is* gecko; it's in fact exactly equivalent to the Gecko in Mozilla 0.9.4.1 (ie, the branch occurred in Mozilla's repository, not in Netscape's). I proposed NS-62 as the branch name just because the 0.9.4.1 branch was created in mozilla for netscape's purposes, and I see no reason not to acknowledge that in the branch name. Calling it Moz-0941 would be just as valid, I suppose, but less meaningful, really. As dveditz points out, the problem *isn't* that Netscape's not following the spec, but that the spec doesn't deal with Netscape's situation. It also doesn't deal with a long-lived 1.0 branch, and we know that's going to happen, also. As far as your other issues with the differences between NS and other mozillas, those are valid but can be addressed with the existing spec. The branch issue is the only thing, as far as I see, that the existing spec doesn't address at all. > Nope. Mozilla uses "real" Gecko. As does Galleon, Kmeleon, Nautilus, > Konqueror, Skipstone, Beonex (sp), Warpzilla (AFAIK), [...]. So the Gecko > version for these 8+ should be the exact same. Nuh uh. How would you distinguish between the Gecko pulled on 2002-09-20 [1] from the stable mozilla 1.0 branch and the Gecko on the unstable CVS trunk on the same date? The answer, with my proposal, would be that 1.0 based products would be that the former would be Gecko/Moz-10.20020920 and the latter would be Gecko/20020920. Stuart. [1] Picking a date when I might conservatively assume that we'll have a 1.0 branch -- Stuart Ballard, Programmer FASTNET - Internet Solutions 215.283.2300, ext. 126 www.fast.net
