On 8/28/10 7:43 PM, Phillip Jones wrote: > Manuel Reimer wrote: >> Robert Kaiser wrote: >>> Actually, as much as I hate appending "Firefox" to any UA string of >>> browsers that are not Firefox, I just filed a bug to make any Gecko that >>> not has "Firefox" in its UA string right now to send one in the future. >> >> I don't think this is a good idea. Webmasters should learn to match for >> "Gecko". >> >> Yours >> >> Manue > While that is noble thought. The reality is, most webmasters for most > commercial Sites don't give a rats behind. The will sniff on FireFox not > gecko. In fact I would be shocked and surprised in most even know > anything about w3c or what gecko is. >
It's more than a noble thought. The tracking bug for bad sniffing -- bug #334967 -- depends on 208 specific bug reports about individual cases of bad sniffing. 37 of of those specific bug reports have been closed, indicating that Web masters do indeed learn that "Gecko is Gecko". 18 of the specific bug reports were either duplicates, invalid, or "Works for Me". That means there are 190 valid specific bug reports, 19% of which were fixed. If even a slight effort were made to communicate proper sniffing -- and the possibility that sniffing is not needed at all -- many more of the valid bug reports would also be fixed. I'm not convinced that the changes in presenting the UA string (based on bug #572650?) will really solve the problems of invalid sniffing. If "Firefox" is always appended to the UA string, it is more likely that Web masters will conclude SeaMonkey is no longer in use. -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> I filter and ignore all newsgroup messages posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent because of the amount of spam from that source. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
