Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

"Jesús M. Navarro" writes: > Just take it a bit out of context (as a lawyer would probably do): > Attorney: What's a User Agent String? > Expert: Well, it's the way the browser identifies itself against the server. That's an uncoached expert who just gave a crappy answer to that question, since

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Hi, Steve: On Wednesday 11 November 2009 08:17:50 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:37:56AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > IMHO, with not very convincing arguments. And no sign of answer about > > the real potential problem: would that be another trademark issue. > > > > What

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:38:25PM -0600, John Goerzen 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: > My suggestion is this: > > Take the default Fir

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:38:25PM -0600, John Goerzen 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: > > > > My suggestion is this: > > > > > > > > Take the default Firefox user agen

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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: > > > My suggestion is this: > > > > > > Take the default Firefox user agent. > > > > > > Where you see Firefox/x.y.z, change it to: > > > > > >

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Raphael Geissert wrote: > I can't think of a better way to stop this ridiculous UA mess. It has to > stop, this silliness has lasted too many years already. A better way would bring on the User-Agent flag day, where all the browser vendors turn off submitting us

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Adam Majer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:57:22AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: >> I just decided I don't care anymore. So here is a deal to those reading >> this thread. Give me a UA string that: >> - Doesn't claim to be Firefox (i.e keep Iceweasel in it) >> - Is compatible with most crappy site

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 Firefox

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Adam Majer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:57:22AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: >> I just decided I don't care anymore. So here is a deal to those reading >> this thread. Give me a UA string that: >> - Doesn't claim to be Firefox (i.e keep Iceweasel in it) >> - Is compatible with most crappy sites

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

[Adam Majer] > Opera does allows per-site configuration of the UA string. Opera lies > a lot in name of compatibility. I believe a complete list of the workarounds in Opera is available from http://www.opera.com/docs/browserjs/>. The version of browser.js used by my Opera is downloaded from http

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:02:39AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:33:42PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Mike Hommey (10/11/2009): > > > 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

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:20:49PM +0100, 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: > > > > >

Re: Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

The current Iceweasel UA string is "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091028 Iceweasel/3.5.4 (Debian-3.5.4-1)". How about modifying the last (distro-specific) part to read "(like Firefox/3.5.4 Debian-3.5.4-1)"? The browser's similarity to Firefox would be listed amon

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:57:22AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > I just decided I don't care anymore. So here is a deal to those reading > this thread. Give me a UA string that: > - Doesn't claim to be Firefox (i.e keep Iceweasel in it) > - Is compatible with most crappy sites on earth[1] (i.e. Test

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:37:56AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org): > > > - Adding Firefox to Camino: > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384721 > > Where we can see that dbaron is against it. > > IMHO, with not very convincing arguments. ht

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:37:56AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > IMHO, with not very convincing arguments. And no sign of answer about > the real potential problem: would that be another trademark issue. > Whatever solution is taken in the other branches of this thread where > possible UA stri

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Christian Perrier writes: > I think we should at some point check with Mozilla Corporation about > their stance: would they consider it to be a trademark violation if we > mention "Firefox" in some way in the UA string of Iceweasel? It will be difficult to phrase this question in such a way that

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Quoting Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org): > - Adding Firefox to Camino: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384721 > Where we can see that dbaron is against it. IMHO, with not very convincing arguments. And no sign of answer about the real potential problem: would that be another tradem

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On lun., 2009-11-09 at 19:54 +, brian m. carlson wrote: > The breakage for Webkit-based browsers is significantly less, since they > all identify themselves as Safari; if a site supports Safari, then it > generally works with all Webkit-based browsers. That's not true. Midori identifies itsel

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:26:15PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > >> John Goerzen wrote: > >>> My suggestion is this: > >>> > >>> Take the default Firefox user agent. > >>> > >>> Where you see Firefox/x.y.z, change

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:33:42PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Mike Hommey (10/11/2009): > > 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 > > parenthesis. > > What about “foo/bar -- similar to baz/q

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 pr

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey (10/11/2009): > 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 > parenthesis. What about “foo/bar -- similar to baz/quux” to avoid parenthesing issues? Or “like” or “similar to” or “almost like”

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >> John Goerzen wrote: >>> My suggestion is this: >>> >>> Take the default Firefox user agent. >>> >>> Where you see Firefox/x.y.z, change it to: >>> >>> Firefox/x.y.z Iceweasel/x.y.z >>> >>> And that will accompli

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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'

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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 p

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > John Goerzen wrote: > > My suggestion is this: > > > > Take the default Firefox user agent. > > > > Where you see Firefox/x.y.z, change it to: > > > > Firefox/x.y.z Iceweasel/x.y.z > > > > And that will accomplish everything need

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

John Goerzen wrote: > My suggestion is this: > > Take the default Firefox user agent. > > Where you see Firefox/x.y.z, change it to: > > Firefox/x.y.z Iceweasel/x.y.z > > And that will accomplish everything needed. > > Sound good, Mike? > I forgot to add: JavaScript must also make sure to

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

John Goerzen wrote: > Epiphany under XUbuntu 7.04: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en; > rv:1.8.1.3) > Gecko/20061201 Epiphany/2.18 Firefox/2.0.0.3 (Ubuntu-feisty) I can report that this fixed the problem for Google Gears at least. I haven't had the opportunity to test others. My suggestion is

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:54:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >>> Mike Hommey wrote: I just decided I don't care anymore. So here is a deal to those reading this thread. Give me a UA string that: - Doesn't claim to be Firefox (i.

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:10:39AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > 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. Epiphany never had a Firefox string in Debian. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-deve

Re: Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Even if it doesn't add much to the discussion, I think the following is fun to read: Relax ;) -- Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath Ruhr-Universität Bochum Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT) Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/1

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 p

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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 > > > parenthesis. > > >

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:54:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >> Mike Hommey wrote: >> > >> > I just decided I don't care anymore. So here is a deal to those reading >> > this thread. Give me a UA string that: >> > - Doesn't claim to be Firefox (i.e keep Iceweasel in it) >>

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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 > > parenthesis. > > I would not expect that to achieve the same level of compatibility. Th

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:54:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >> Mike Hommey wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: Hi everyone, The fact that Iceweasel does not behave like Firefox in some important areas has been bothering

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:54:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> The fact that Iceweasel does not behave like Firefox in some important > >> areas has been bothering me more and more of l

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> The fact that Iceweasel does not behave like Firefox in some important >> areas has been bothering me more and more of late. Iceweasel breaks >> many, many web apps by virtue of not using the F

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:42:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:57:22AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Give me a UA string that: > > > And I will change it before squeeze freeze. > > FWIW, thanks a lot for this choice. > > I understand your principle reasons for n

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:57:22AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > Give me a UA string that: > And I will change it before squeeze freeze. FWIW, thanks a lot for this choice. I understand your principle reasons for not being willing to change the UA string, but pragmatically I believe this choice wo

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The fact that Iceweasel does not behave like Firefox in some important > areas has been bothering me more and more of late. Iceweasel breaks > many, many web apps by virtue of not using the Firefox user-agent > strin

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:33:49AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:22:38AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > 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 browse

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > Another pragmatic approach would be to upload a Firefox package in > non-free. This is not very pragmatic, since that cannot be installed as part of the default Debian desktop. > Also, for Joey, who talked about chromium being a solution, is that [1] > really the kind of solu

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:22:38AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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 fir

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, November 10, 2009 04:46, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:48:49PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> As a person who has developed web apps and has had to deal with this my >> opinion is to follow the specs and implement remedies in a best-effort >> manner for those browse

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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 tal

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Quoting Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org): > This browser is based on the Firefox source-code, with minor > modifications > > Yes, the UA string is a pretty minor modification. As this thread shows, not for end users. Whatever importance this might have, if our goal is to benefit our users, an

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

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 app

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 07:25:55AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Paul Wise: > > > Probably the best solution is to get all the web browsers out there > > (especially Firefox) to drop the User-Agent HTTP header and not send > > it to web servers. It is abused way too often by web applications an

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Quoting Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org): > You're free to fight for this if you like, but this is very much a "make the > mountain come to Mohammed" situation - the number of code monkeys writing > bad web apps is enormous, and all of Debian's users together are unlikely to > make a dent in thi

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

* Paul Wise: > Probably the best solution is to get all the web browsers out there > (especially Firefox) to drop the User-Agent HTTP header and not send > it to web servers. It is abused way too often by web applications and > never really was a good idea in the first place. If someone is on the

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:48:49PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> John Goerzen wrote: >> [...] >> > It would be *great* if this could be fixed before sarge comes out. > >> Like Mike already said, those sites or applications also break with many >> other browsers. The, o

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:48:49PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > John Goerzen wrote: > [...] > > It would be *great* if this could be fixed before sarge comes out. > Like Mike already said, those sites or applications also break with many > other browsers. The, often limited, knowledge of the b

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Paul Wise wrote: > Probably the best solution is to get all the web browsers out there > (especially Firefox) to drop the User-Agent HTTP header and not send > it to web servers. It is abused way too often by web applications and > never really was a good idea in the first place. If someone is on t

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

John Goerzen wrote: [...] > It would be *great* if this could be fixed before sarge comes out. > Like Mike already said, those sites or applications also break with many other browsers. The, often limited, knowledge of the browsers by the developer shouldn't be a reason to limit the usage of thos

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:40:00PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > Also note there is a "Report broken web site" in the Help menu, which > > gives a dialing in which the first "Problem type" is "Browser not > > supported". This should open some kind of evangelism bug to mozilla

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > Also note there is a "Report broken web site" in the Help menu, which > gives a dialing in which the first "Problem type" is "Browser not > supported". This should open some kind of evangelism bug to mozilla, > though I'm not exactly sure it works in the Iceweasel builds. Feed

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Probably the best solution is to get all the web browsers out there (especially Firefox) to drop the User-Agent HTTP header and not send it to web servers. It is abused way too often by web applications and never really was a good idea in the first place. If someone is on the whatwg/w3c lists and w

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 02:19:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > A constructive technical approach to this problem might be to get > chromium into Debian. Its UA claims to be Mozilla, AppleWebKit, Chrome, > and Safari, all of which have big enough market shares that websites > tend to "support" them.

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Michael Gilbert wrote: > On 11/9/09, John Goerzen wrote: >> Here are some sites/apps that break, at least in part, because of our >> API claiming to be Iceweasel: >> >> Zimbra admin console >> BlackBoard (used by thousands of universities) >> http://browserplus.yahoo.com/ (claims the browser isn'

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Obey Arthur Liu wrote: > As someone pointed out in the thread, Mozilla doesn't even allow its > trunk and alpha versions of Firefox to use the Firefox brand, whether in > application name, installation directory (for the Windows version) or This has nothing to do with using the "brand". This is a

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 07:25:40PM +0100, Obey Arthur Liu wrote: > As someone pointed out in the thread, Mozilla doesn't even allow its trunk > and alpha versions of Firefox to use the Firefox brand, whether in > application name, installation directory (for the Windows version) or user > agent. Th

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Obey Arthur Liu wrote: > I think we're just as not allowed to distribute versions of Firefox that use > the Firefox user agent as we're not allowed to distribute versions that use > the > Firefox name and logo. Have we actually gotten legal advice to the effect that a user agent string is covered

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Hi. Then simply change the user agent (either manually or via one of the available plugins)... or even better: Contact the authors of your listed applications, to fix theirs instead of "fixing" Iceweasel, which is totally fine as it is. Cheers, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

* Michael Gilbert: > i know that this may be the "hard" solution, but the best way to solve > these problems is to educate the developers of these services > individually (primarily via technical service requests, complaints, > and threats to take your business elsewhere). And if it's a library f

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On 11/9/09, John Goerzen wrote: > Here are some sites/apps that break, at least in part, because of our > API claiming to be Iceweasel: > > Zimbra admin console > BlackBoard (used by thousands of universities) > http://browserplus.yahoo.com/ (claims the browser isn't supported) > http://gears.goo

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

As someone pointed out in the thread, Mozilla doesn't even allow its trunk and alpha versions of Firefox to use the Firefox brand, whether in application name, installation directory (for the Windows version) or user agent. Third party builds (even if they just add a compiler flag) of final release

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: [...] > Iceweasel breaks many, many web apps by virtue of not using the > Firefox user-agent string. [...] I've been relying on the User-Agent-Switcher extension to solve this issue for at least a couple years (also lets me work around

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Mike Hommey wrote: > > The fact is that everything that is failing with iceweasel because of > its user agent will fail equally with epiphany, galeon, midori, > kazehakase, conqueror, konqueror, and probably more. Why should > iceweasel be an exception ? None of those claim to be basically like F

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM, John Goerzen wrote: > It would be *great* if this could be fixed before sarge comes out. Sarge shipped with firefox, so no worries there. ;) Squeeze, on the other hand, might need some work. SCNR. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega -- To

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:00:35PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > I know there may be technical arguments that "people shouldn't be using > > user agent like that." But the reality is that they are, and we have a > > serious usability

Re: Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > I know there may be technical arguments that "people shouldn't be using > user agent like that." But the reality is that they are, and we have a > serious usability problem because we change user agent. There's no > reason that we'd

Iceweasel and Firefox compatibility

Hi everyone, The fact that Iceweasel does not behave like Firefox in some important areas has been bothering me more and more of late. Iceweasel breaks many, many web apps by virtue of not using the Firefox user-agent string. It also breaks compatibility with some plugins. I completely agree wi