[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:05:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:45:04PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>>>> John Goerzen wrote:
>>>>>   Firefox/x.y.z Iceweasel/x.y.z
>>> Sounds too Firefoxy. 
>> What's the problem with that?  I thought Iceweasel *was* Firefox for all
>> practical purposes, modulo branding and usual distribution patches.
>> Did we actually seriously fork Firefox since the rename?
> Simply putting Firefox like that in the UA can sound like it is
> Firefox. And we still don't have the right to use the Firefox name on
> something that doesn't bear the Firefox logo.

What is this "sound like"?  We're talking about a technical string that
is overall parsed by machines, not humans.  What we need is something
that machines can parse in an expected way.

> I'd rather avoid yet another trademark issue, and if the (like
> Firefox/x.y) works as well, it's safer to go that way.

Some initial testing suggests that it helps -- I'd much rather see that
than nothing, but I suspect it is not as good as the Flock approach, for
instance.  If it works for them, surely it would work for us.

-- John

Reply to: