Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:29:39PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:23:10AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>>>> Let me suggest adding "(like Firefox/3.5)", but I'm not sure how the
>>>> crappy sites parsing the version number will deal with the closing
>>> I would not expect that to achieve the same level of compatibility.
>> That's what Camino is doing, FWIW.
> For those interested, there are 2 interesting discussions related to the
> UA strings in Camino and Firefox:
> - Adding Firefox to Camino:
> Where we can see that dbaron is against it.
That is an interesting discussion. They have pointed out a few things:
one is that some websites have explicitly said they never intend to
tweak their detection to work with Camino. Another is that their
marketshare is too small to have enough muscle to ever hope to win the
struggle for "correct" behavior; we would share that problem.
Also, they pointed out these user agent strings in other browsers:
Epiphany under Ubuntu 6.10: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en; rv:1.8.1)
Gecko/20060601 Epiphany/2.16 Firefox/2.0 (Ubuntu-feisty)
Epiphany under XUbuntu 7.04: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en;
Gecko/20061201 Epiphany/2.18 Firefox/188.8.131.52 (Ubuntu-feisty)
Flock: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206)
Gecko/20070530 Firefox/220.127.116.11 Flock/0.7.14
I was going to test Epiphany on sid, but I couldn't since it's using
Webkit instead of Gecko here, and thus a very different user-agent.