I don’t think any of those standards do versions anymore. They just add modules, and then browsers implement them in whatever order.
They could list the individual features, but of course, now you’ve exposed a huge fingerprinting vector. And that wouldn’t even help for bugs, where the browsers would say they implement a feature, but then a bug would still require a browser-specific workaround. And you’d have to have access to it already via the HTTP request headers, because you might need to serve different content in response to it.
UA strings are not pretty, but it’s not a simple problem to solve.
Firefox 126 on Android has added “Linux” to the HTTP User-Agent String… Adding Linux finally to the Android User-Agent string has fixed some website compatibility issues plaguing Firefox for Android.
Are there still sites that rely on useragents, other than auto-selecting a package to download?
Love the passive-aggressiveness and completely agree with it. Android and ChromeOS are Linux. They should report as such. Let’s see those stats change.
I personally see as benefiting us Linux users by forcing the rare website that “doesn’t work with your operating system” to work if they want to reach that sweet over-a-billion-user Android market. Win-win for pretty much everyone.
It sounds like the idea was actually the other way around: forcing the rare website that doesn’t work with Firefox for Android (which only has a small share of the billion-plus-user Android market) to work.
Add comment