UA string.

[Dawit A.]

On Friday 21 February 2003 05:30, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> Anyway, I don't disagree anymore switching to a Mozilla like UA string. The
> key thing in this discussion for me was that the general layout of the UA
> string of our two browsers should be the same. If you absolutely need the
> double bracketed string parts, then please tell.
>
> Otherwise IMHO it would be better to just include it in the first bracketed
> string part, at the same position in both browsers, having the same field
> layout. Look, changing the UA string is not so difficult for you, as you
> don't have a stable release yet. We have about 5 major public stable
> releases which we break compatibility with.

What is the reason behind this requirement ? I mean having the same general 
layout of between the two browsers ?  I checked several "major sites" and 
I've yet to see sites where the position of any specific word within the 
user-agent string matters. Everyone simply checks for the presence or absence 
of certain strings using the indexOf(...) == -1 or != -1.  I am just curious 
what the advantage of having the same layout as opposed to simply having a 
common identifiable part is. All we have to do is settle on is a common 
identifiable string/word, no ?

My only concern to any suggested change is completely going to abandon the 
current string used to identify us (namely konqueror/major.minor). This 
surely will break sites that rely on that string, how few they may be.

IMHO, what would be even more desirable is to ask all interested parties 
(Mozilla team, Opera, even MS if they are interested) to settle on a format 
going forward. That way this types of discussion will not be necessary in the 
future.

Regards,
Dawit A.