Received: by 10.205.126.4 with SMTP id gu4mr4384461bkc.8.1343919849598;
        Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: m12ni61861bkm.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Jason Smith <jsm...@mozilla.com>
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.platform
Subject: Re: "Touch" or "Tablet"?
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 08:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <17598435-42e0-48f0-ba3e-916ab2e8d82c@googlegroups.com>
References: <PPWdnTbq7cTzHIfNnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@mozilla.org> <mailman.15267.1343916586.27472.dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.248.43.172
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1343919849 7103 127.0.0.1 (2 Aug 2012 15:04:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:04:09 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: dev-platf...@lists.mozilla.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.15267.1343916586.27472.dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=98.248.43.172;
 posting-account=tlsrqgoAAAB6iaHyWuXOKsdLcWAZe7t7
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 7:09:43 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Mandel wrote:
> > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/07/12/ie10-user-agent-string-up=
date.aspx
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > IE10 has introduced the Touch token to the UA string, which overlaps
>=20
> > in
>=20
> > intent with our Tablet token.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Dao suggests it would be nice to get cross-browser consistency here.
>=20
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D773355
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > This makes some sense to me. "Touch" is more the matter of interest
>=20
> > than
>=20
> > the form factor. If we do switch, we should do it before we ship
>=20
> > native
>=20
> > Fennec on tablets.
>=20
> >=20
>=20
> > Anyone want to argue for or against?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> My argument against is that this change continues the churn on our UAs, w=
hich have already been publicized [1]. Unless there is a clear benefit, I t=
hink we should avoid shooting ourselves in the foot by making changes that =
may impact compatibility. However, in all fairness, I have no data on how m=
any sites currently recognize the Firefox Tablet UA.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Lawrence
>=20
>=20
>=20
> [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko_user_agent_string_reference

I agree with Lawrence. We know we have had a problem with churn on the user=
 agent and partners have complained about it for being one of the reasons w=
hy X site stopped working on Firefox for Android.

As a point of comparison btw - what does the user agent of Safari on the IP=
ad look like for comparison? IPad is dominant on the tablet market right no=
w, so they might be a good point for comparison.