Jonas J�rgensen wrote: > Daniel Veditz wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey: > >> Jeremy M. Dolan wrote: > > >> >>> Shouldn't dbaron be involved in the discussion here? >> >> >> Still enjoying his holidays I expect, or gearing up for school. I hope he >> does get involved, but if he never shows up it's not required. For >> something >> this fundamental to the way mozilla is seen we probably need >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ultimately. > > > So, [EMAIL PROTECTED], what do you say? Are you in favor of a change > of User-Agent strings? There's not much point in debating this otherwise. > > If it is going to be changed, it'd better happen soon, before we get too > close to 1.0. > > So could some of you please come to the newsgroup and comment? >
In general, UA changes are bad since they affect many many sites and applications on those sites. Someone had better come up with a damn fine reason. I've been following the thread on the periphery and I haven't seen any reason to make a change yet. --Chris -- ------------ Christopher Blizzard http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/ Mozilla.org - we're on a mission from God. Still. ------------
