* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:41:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:04:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm not seeing what us
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:41:22PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:04:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > I'm not seeing what us being different is buying us though. Sure, the
> > >
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:04:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I'm not seeing what us being different is buying us though. Sure, the
> > mozilla format is stupid, but there doesn't seem to be any advantage
> > to the way you've do
Hello,
I ran across this bug while trying to resolve a problem I'm having with
FCKeditor[1]. FCKeditor compares the javascript value
navigator.productSub[2] to a number (20030210) in its browser detection
code. This now fails because navigator.productSub
is 'Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-2'. Gran
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:10:03PM -0600, Benj Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I ran across this bug while trying to resolve a problem I'm having with
> FCKeditor[1]. FCKeditor compares the javascript value
> navigator.productSub[2] to a number (20030210) in its browser detection
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:04:12PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm not seeing what us being different is buying us though. Sure, the
> mozilla format is stupid, but there doesn't seem to be any advantage
> to the way you've done it. It's ok for us to be different, but there
>
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:06:26PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Package: firefox
> > > Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3
> > > Severity: minor
On 24/04/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:00:50PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Won't this cause problems for scripts that attempt to parse user-agent
> > string?
>
> Why would it ?
They could naively expect the string to follow th
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:46:36PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 24/04/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:00:50PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Won't this cause problems for scripts that attempt to parse
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:06:26PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Package: firefox
> > Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3
> > Severity: minor
> >
> > The user-agent string:
> >
> > Mozilla/5.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:00:50PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 24/04/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The user-agent string:
> > >
> > > Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U;
On 24/04/06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Piotr Engelking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The user-agent string:
> >
> > Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); rv:1.8.0.2)
> > Gecko/Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3 Firefox/1.5.0.2
> >
> >
Package: firefox
Version: 1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3
Severity: minor
The user-agent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); rv:1.8.0.2)
Gecko/Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.2-3 Firefox/1.5.0.2
violates Mozilla user-agent string specification
[http://www.mozilla.org/build/revised-user-agent-stri
13 matches
Mail list logo
