Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

IE and Mozilla

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    this still baffle's me. Why is IE browser said it is Mozilla 4.0?

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Compatibility with broken UA string parsers. Though in this day and age it really isn't necessary. I imagine by IE10 they'll correct it...

  • User profile image
    Larry Osterman

    As I understand it, it is still necessary.  That's why *every* browser out there announces itself as Mozilla 4.0.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    @Larry Osterman: Yep, every browser. Except Opera (which just says it's Opera). And Firefox, Chrome and Safari (which all say they're Mozilla 5.0).

    In fact, IE is the only major browser that still has Mozilla 4.0 in the UA string. Most others (except Opera) seem to use Mozilla 5.0 instead.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    @Sven Groot: that won't last long... IE9 already uses the Mozilla/5.0 prefix by default (although it falls back to Mozilla/4.0 when in compatibility mode).

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    So, why is it ok for Opera to say Opera, but, everyone else are stucked?

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    spivonious

    @magicalclick:

    Because no one uses Opera. *cue rimshot*

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @spivonious: There is also a crap-ton of sites who use it for serious browser detection. Here's a good article I read one time on the subject:

    http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2010/01/12/history-of-the-user-agent-string/

    And an explanation of IE9's user agent (it references the above article)

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/23/introducing-ie9-s-user-agent-string.aspx

     

  • User profile image
    Larry Osterman

    @spivonious:

    Yup.  As I understand it, the IE team takes "breaking the web" *very* seriously.  They work their butts off to ensure that broken sites continue to work.  Other browser manufacturers have higher tolerance for breakage.

  • User profile image
    Larry Osterman

    @spivonious:

    Yup.  As I understand it, the IE team takes "breaking the web" *very* seriously.  They work their butts off to ensure that broken sites continue to work.  Other browser manufacturers have higher tolerance for breakage.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    @magicalclick: Opera is stuck like everyone else, albeit with a little more creativity. They are so used at being discriminated that their browser can be disguised as either IE or Firefox. In that case, it just sends the Mozilla prefix.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    , Larry Osterman wrote

    @spivonious:

    Yup.  As I understand it, the IE team takes "breaking the web" *very* seriously.  They work their butts off to ensure that broken sites continue to work.  Other browser manufacturers have higher tolerance for breakage.

    Right, but seeming as IE9 in "IE9 mode" is backwards-incompatible with pretty much every IE-only website out there (and it hasn't been 2004 for over 6 years now) I don't get why they put "Mozilla 5.0" at the start when they could have put "Explorer 9.0" instead, because IE's compatibility mode already sends "Mozilla 4.0" and any websites that updated their UA-sniffers since the release of IE7 are going to be ready enough to update theirs to accomodate my hypothetical Explorer UA.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    So, if they keeps using Mozila, when can I use the proper browser detection?

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    @magicalclick: You shouldn't use browser detection, but capability detection.

  • User profile image
    Bugoyon

    Hi all

  • User profile image
    elmer

    @kettch:Yep, the article by Nicholas C. Zakas does the best job of explaining the history of the Mozilla/version identifier.

    http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2010/01/12/history-of-the-user-agent-string/

    However, I wonder how valid that reason is today, and how many webservers would actually reject a request based on the whether or not the UA String commenced with Mozilla/

     

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    However, I wonder how valid that reason is today, and how many webservers would actually reject a request based on the whether or not the UA String commenced with Mozilla/

    Probably a surprising large number of them. And probably mostly on embedded devices with web management interfaces which there is absolutely zero possibility of anyone still supporting or releasing fixes for. At which point you have to ask what is actually gained by removing Mozilla/ from the start of the user agent string? And the answer is, not an awful lot.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.