Many themes and extensions are listed as being compatible with Mozilla. Mozilla being the Mozilla Application Suite. But because the "premier products" of the Mozilla Foundation also bear the name "Mozilla", authors assume that "Mozilla" is the same as "Firefox", and sometimes even "Thunderbird". This is very annoying and to the informed users, blatantly obvious. Pick out an extension, and look at its Mozilla compatibility: Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.1. Sounds familiar to Firefox' version numbers, right? This has to be corrected, and if needed, a notice could be put up to stop this confusion.

Offending Themes: iPox (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.6, description, user comment) Mozilla.org (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) qGANT (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.5.0.*) Whitehart (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.5.1)

Offending Extensions from page 1 - 5: 123 Travel Search (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.1) BF2S.com Browser (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.6, date released)

Offending Extensions from page 6 - 15: eXopin Plugin (Firefox 1.5 edition) (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.5.1) Guitar Tabs (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) HotScripts.Com Search Toolbar (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*)

Offending Extensions from page 16 - 25: LinkedIn Companion for Firefox (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) magnolia (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.5.1) MBTA+ (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) miniRank (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) MyspaceBar (Mozilla 1.0, date released) NewOrder Toolbar (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) Performancing (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.5.0.*) popTart - Custom Features for the Digg (Mozilla 1.5, date released) Printable SparkNotes (Mozilla 1.0, date released) QuickURL (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*)

Call it "Mozilla Suite" or "Seamonkey" for newer versions.

Offending Extensions from page 26 - 34: Title Save (Mozilla 1.5 - 1.5.0.*) Webdesign-Forum.de (Mozilla 1.0 - 1.5.0.*) Also, extensions that do not mention being compatible with Mozilla by inserting "---" shouldn't be listed when selecting "All Extensions" in the Mozilla section. That's all.

Is this a user-entered description, or the one we build from the DB?

It's built from the database, I think, as it's not part of the user-entered description. It's the text below "For Mozilla:" and next to the icon.

Trying to cram in "Mozilla Application Suite" might be a bit too much.

My suggestion would be to inform on the page where those details are entered that "Mozilla" refers to the suite, not Firefox or the platform.

AMO BUGSPAM FOR COMPONENT MOVE AND DELETE (FILTER ME)

AMO BUGSPAM FOR QACONTACT FIX (FILTER ME)

It looks to me as if AMO would just always list all themes/extensions, not caring if there is a version available for the selected application at all, and so Firefox users get SeaMonkey themes displayed, and vice versa.

We want the user to quickly know exactly which one to click.

alanjstr: How can he know what to click if the usual user doesn't know which themes are available for the chosen product and most actually are not, as it's the case for e.g. SeaMonkey or Sunbird?

Can we close this as Remora does not have Mozilla as a listed application?

/me votes yes. If a similar problem happened on Remora with SeaMonkey compatibility, that would be a different issue.

(In reply to comment #16) > Can we close this as Remora does not have Mozilla as a listed application? Absolutely not! http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/ has the exact same problem for Seamonkey, where themes and extensions listed don't work with it!

(In reply to comment #16) > Can we close this as Remora does not have Mozilla as a listed application? Once the SeaMonkey themes section lists the themes that are compatible with SeaMonkey instead of those compatible with Firefox, I think we can. On preview, we seem to still have a problem there. Form the normal AMO database, at least the LCARStrek and EarlyBlue themes are definately marked as compatible with SeaMonkey, so they should be good test cases.

Remora, which has been "preview" previously and is now live, has this fixed since shortly before it really went live, so marking this fixed.