On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:54:05AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:51:16AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > After all, what does prevent us to just put "Firefox" back in the > > default User-Agent? We'll see if some Mozilla person raises an RC bug > > and then we would talk..:-)...That would be the pragmatic approach.
> Another pragmatic approach would be to upload a Firefox package in > non-free. Why should users have to install a non-default browser from non-free to work with these websites if a straightforward change to the default free browser would ensure compatibility? > Now, for all those that would like to add "Firefox" in the UA to make > stupid web sites happy, why were you not advocating to add "MSIE" in the > UA to make the same stupid web sites happy when Firefox didn't have > enough "market share" to be considered interesting to support by these > stupid web sites ? Because the rendering engines and object support were (and are) sufficiently different between IE and Firefox that any site that *does* support both IE and Firefox, keying on the user agent to decide what content to send, would regress for users under this scenario. Do you believe this is a problem for Iceweasel vs. Firefox? > Why should it be a different matter ? Why are you not > advocating to add "Firefox" in the other browsers'UA ? Is there a particular browser that you would advocate replacing iceweasel with as the default browser in Debian? If Debian is going to switch to another browser as the default, which also provides an engine compatible with firefox but uses a different UA string, I'm happy to focus my attention there. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
