The worst is that just changing the user agent makes everything work.
The best part is that the default Waterfox user-agent begins with an unmodified copy of the Firefox one (which is allowed), with " Waterfox/X.Y." appended to it.
161–166 of 166 posts
The worst is that just changing the user agent makes everything work.
The best part is that the default Waterfox user-agent begins with an unmodified copy of the Firefox one (which is allowed), with " Waterfox/X.Y." appended to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we back to the "built for Netscape 4.7" days? Sites shouldn't support browsers, but standards. By all means check if a browser supports a certain standard, and provide an error message for browsers that are too far behind, but don't ban them simply for having the wrong user agent.
This means that you need some sort of comprehensive integration that tests all corner cases of features you use. You certainly can't rely on the browser vendors to implement every feature perfectly according to spec with no bugs. So you have to test it yourself. Most people test their app, see that it mostly works, and then declares the browser supported. That's why we get these things like "please use browser X"; it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'supported browsers' are browsers that you lose customers if you don't support. That's a great attitude towards your users. No, you, the vendor, adapt to what your users bring. That is the standard that the web was built around. Lazy developers that only wish to cater to the one browser that they have on their desk and that refuse to recognize that the world is a bit larger than their minimal view (including screen…
If a user brought you Lynx I'm pretty sure you wouldn't jump to support them. Whether Firefox deserves support by default is a question with a different answer at every company.
If a browser is standards compliant it should be supported. Note that standards are there for a reason, they create a level playing field. So all you really need to do is to ensure that your implementation is conform the standard, you then still have to test to ensure that your assumptions hold in light of practical applications of that standard on the rendering side. But there really is absolutely no excuse why barring non-standard extensions your website would not work with all browsers with more than 1% market share.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
Would be a good place to start for your compatibility testing.
The worst is that just changing the user agent makes everything work.
Facebook "kind of" works in Firefox, but there's loads of subtle breakage: for example pasting anything in Messenger (with ctrl+v) breaks the entire site for me. Middle-click kind-of but kind-of-doesn't work, depending on planetary alignments or some such :-/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome attacking the privacy and the choice of its users has been happening for years now. And Firefox keeps dying.
Mozilla (Firefox) management thought that installing a Mr Robot advert extension on people's computers, without asking, was a good move, and defended it until the internet outcry got loud enough. With management like that, I find it hard to trust them. Default-installing Pocket was also not entirely defensible and was probably money-driven. Essentially, both companies have done anti-privacy and untrustworthy actions,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> known good apps Correction: known bad apps (where changing it just works but they've decided not to let you use it). I consider it very shameful behavior, sabotaging the internet.
Well I meant it as 'apps that work good' when changing the UA string. But you are right.