MercadoLivre renders a very basic HTML mobile site to fennec native. On other mobile browsers such as stock and opera, an optimized mobile site is seen. Spoofing the UA does not solve the problem. There's some weird UA sniffing going on here in particular: Browser = { IE: !! (window.attachEvent && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Opera") === -1), Opera: navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Opera") > -1, WebKit: navigator.userAgent.indexOf("AppleWebKit/") > -1, Gecko: navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Gecko") > -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf("KHTML") === -1, MobileSafari: !! navigator.userAgent.match(/Apple.*Mobile.*Safari/) };

This does not block Basecamp. We need to work with these providers, but that work doesn't block our release schedule.

(In reply to Dietrich Ayala (:dietrich) from comment #1) > This does not block Basecamp. We need to work with these providers, but that > work doesn't block our release schedule. Err...well, not exactly. I'll try to explain the original discussion that happened when this was brought up for k9o, and why +'s ended up being used below. I'm renoming on that basis and suggesting that we should talk about this privately with Lawrence on how to handle these bugs. Putting productwanted on too, as someone from product should have input on this too (maybe clee?). Back in the k9o age, this question was posed as "do we block on evangelism bugs?" The conclusion was reached was that k9o blockers represent blockers to reaching a particular vision to what we need for the Mozilla Web Platform to be successful, which included having certain sites operate correctly on mobile gecko. When requirements were determined for basecamp, this initiative was still considered a P1 requirement, although only in the context of the initial launch of boot to gecko (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Kilimanjaro/Basecamp). The focus that was determined for B2G was that it had to be either a top app for the Brazilian launch or a top site for Brazil (specifically a top 50). If we're still sticking with the definition of the requirements defined here - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Kilimanjaro/Basecamp and the past precedent analysis to determine how evangelism bugs tied into here, then yes this is a basecamp blocker, because this Brazilian site is a top 50 site in Brazil. Now I understand that likely, the blocking-basecamp flag is being used as a blocking flag of whether this blocks us determining that the v1 software for b2g is complete. So likely there is a conflict of approach here of the past precedent policy being used for the blocking flag vs. now. Note that no matter what, we need these particular bugs tracked at a high-level (i.e. at the level of the blocking-basecamp flag) so that people understand other factors outside of the software that's needed to meet v1 software completion effectively. Let's get a private discussion setup with a few of us on this next week.

We get the mobile site now in F4A 23 and 24 beta.