On 2011-03-25, at 12:56, Peter Kasting wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Mark Rowe <mr...@apple.com> wrote: > Is there some reason why these examples use manufactured Safari build > numbers? It's implausible that a version of Safari with a build number of > 534.24 would ever claim to be version 5.0.3. > > Sorry, I wasn't sure what the right numbers were. What would be a more > accurate number? I'd be happy to change it.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Safari 5.0.3 will always report a build version of 533.19.4. Safari 5.0.4 will always report a build version of 533.20.27. You already used the former in your "before examples". You have also been inconsistent about the WebKit version number. In the "before" version for the Mac user agent string you've included the "+" suffix that indicates an engineering build (from a local build or nightly). This isn't present in the Windows "before" version or either of the "after" versions. Since that component isn't relevant to the point you're trying to make it seems like it would be preferable for it to be consistent between examples. - Mark
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
