Seamonkey OSX Compatibility

[Franz Florian]

Good afternoon!

I would like to ask you which latest Version of Seamonkey is running on Mac OSX 
10.4.11 and 10.5.8  (Tiger and Leopard).

I am a satisfied user of this browser since there are no problems with Qicktime 
and other movie formats.

It would be fine if there is a compatibility list available.

Kind regards!

Franz Florian

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: How to find where a specific bookmark is in my SM's Bookmark Manager? - addon Show Parent Folder 2.1 compatibility

[Rainer Bielefeld]

On 22.09.2019 15:24, JAS wrote:
I have an old add on,Show Parent Folder-2.1-sm+fx.xpi that still works in my SM 
version 2.49.4, 


Hi,

I tried

"Show Parent Folder [converted] 2.1"
from Classic Add-ons Archive
(see )

Does not work with unzipped unofficial (by wg9s) en-US SeaMonkey 2.53 (NT 6.1; 
Win64; x64; rv:56.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/56.0 Build 20190801120006  (Default 
Classic Theme, German Language Pack active) on German WIN7 64bit.


Probably broken by same reason as "Go Parent Foder" by the same author

CU

Rainer

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

SeaMonkey Add-on compatibility

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Hi all,

I am planning to start an attempt to get some user experience for add-on 
compatibility with SeaMonkey 2.35, and if it works, with later versions.


Details concerning the plan: 
https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/Tasks_%26_Projects/Add-on_compatibility


Thoughts, Ideas, concerns?

*Discussion* please at mozilla.support.seamonkey *or* 
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:SeaMonkey/Tasks_%26_Projects/Add-on_compatibility


Best regards

Rainer Bielefeld
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

OT: Followup and parallel posting does not work (Was: Re: SeaMonkey Add-on compatibility)

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Hi all,

I did several attempts to send a posting to news.mozilla.org
Newsgroup: mozilla.support.seamonkey
Newsgroup: mozilla.addons.user-experience
Newsgroup: mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey
Seamonkey always showed a sent succesfully and message became sent in 
Local Folders - Sent, but no message appeared in the NG


I did 1 attempt (like this one) to send a posting to
Newsgroup: mozilla.support.seamonkey
Followup-To: mozilla.addons.user-experience
Followup-To: mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey
Seamonkey  showed a sent succesfully and message became sent in Local 
Folders - Sent, but no message appeared in the followup-NG


I did 1 attempt to send a posting to News.Individual.DE
Newsgroup: alt.de.test
Followup-To: alt.fr.test
Seamonkey showed a sent succesfully and message became sent in Local 
Folders - Sent, but no message appeared in the followup-NG


Now here I clicked Reply All Icon to the posting  SeaMonkey Add-on 
compatibility, but in the aswer message  mozilla.support.seamonkey 
was missing, only Followup-To-Newsgroups appeared in address fields.


Do I have a knowledge gap and my expectation that parrallel posting and 
followup should be possible is wrong?
Do we have a remaining problem from Bug 1151448 - Cross-posts won't 
send because Newsgroups: groups are separated with comma+space, not just 
comma (I left a comment there in 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1151448#c19?


Can someone explain what is happening here?

Best regards

Rainer
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility (Nightly ~ various extensions)

[EE]

Rainer Bielefeld wrote on 20/04/15 00:00:

Hi all,

it would be great if some of you could share their experience with
add-on compatibility. It would be a horrible work for a single person
to leave comments on https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat
SeaMonkey/AddonCompat for all the liste add-ons (and there might
exist hundreds or thousands not listet there). But if lots of users
only leave 1 comment / each that page might become a useful data base,
soon.

The core questions are:
a) Is the original add-on (download from AMO) compatible?
b) Is the compatibility rating on AMO page correct (sometimes
   you will find a warning not available for SM 2.33.1, but
   Installed Addon will work fine
c) If not compatible, what minor or serious problems have
   been observed with what test environment?
d) If original add-on is not compatible, does converted Version
   (see https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat work or
   what minor or serious problems have
   been observed with what test environment?
e) Is a compatible (or alternative) add-on available, may be form
other source than AMO?

You can easily add your observations on the wiki page (it's not a
problem to subscribe and to get an account).
Or if you do not want to edit the page, you can add a posting here in
the thread as I will do for an add-on in few minutes here.


These are my extensions:
Adblock Plus 2.6.9
BetterPrivacy 1.68-m-sm  - 
ftp://ftp.2rosenthals.com/pub/Mozilla/Extensions/modified-for-SM-2.x/

ChatZilla 0.9.91.1 - with SM - updated
CheckPlaces 2.6.2B  - 
http://daniel-lange.com/archives/71-SyncPlaces,-SortPlaces-...-preserving-these-and-other-excellent-Firefox-add-ons.html

Controle de Scripts 1.0.3  - bumped
CS Lite Mod 1.4.9  - bumped
Disconnect 3.15.3 - converted for SM
Display Mail User Agent 1.6.9  - bumped
DOM Inspector 2.0.15 - with SM - updated
x DownloadHelper 4.9.24 - NOT SM past 2.32.1
DownThemAll 2.0.18
Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus 1.3.2
Flashblock 1.3.21mod2 - 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13230070/flashblock1.3.21mod2.xpi

Folderpane Tools 0.6.1  - bumped
Force Content-Type 1.2.2  - converted for SM
JSView-unofficial 2.1.1  - 
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3rgcOPcC5T3bXJSbGg4aVY1ckk/edit - have 
to allow popups to get


Kill Bright Backgrounds 2.0  - tweaked for SM - 
http://dourob8.100webspace.net/extensions/killBrightBackgrounds.xpi
-- a bit complicated - had to install in Firefox, extract it from 
extensions directory in profile, and edit the install.rdf and 
chrome.manifest files to replace info in lines.


Live HTTP headers 0.17  - bumped
Long URL Please Mod 0.5.1  - converted for SM
Modify Headers 0.7.1.2b  - bumped - removed remark markers from 
SeaMonkey target in install.rdf


MR Tech Toolkit 6.0.4.9000  - 
http://www.mrtech.com/extensions/toolkit.xpi -installed in Firefox, 
extracted (and renamed) from extensions directory

 - add SeaMonkey target app info to install.rdf

RefControl 0.8.17  - bumped
Tiny JavaScript Debugger 1.1
URL n Extension Block(UnE Block) 2.9.20 - converted for SM
User Agent Switcher 0.7.3  - bumped
Video Downloader professional 1.97.36  - converted for SM
Web Developer 1.2.5  - bumped - some parts no longer work
YesScript 2.1 - replace chrome.manifest (from 2.0)

Themes that work without modification:
   Early Blue 2.33
   LCARStrek 2.33
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility (Nightly ~ various extensions)

[Barry Edwin Gilmour]

Rainer Bielefeld wrote on 20/04/15 00:00:

Hi all,

it would be great if some of you could share their experience with 
add-on compatibility. It would be a horrible work for a single person 
to leave comments on https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat 
SeaMonkey/AddonCompat for all the liste add-ons (and there might 
exist hundreds or thousands not listet there). But if lots of users 
only leave 1 comment / each that page might become a useful data base, 
soon.


The core questions are:
a) Is the original add-on (download from AMO) compatible?
b) Is the compatibility rating on AMO page correct (sometimes
   you will find a warning not available for SM 2.33.1, but
   Installed Addon will work fine
c) If not compatible, what minor or serious problems have
   been observed with what test environment?
d) If original add-on is not compatible, does converted Version
   (see https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat work or
   what minor or serious problems have
   been observed with what test environment?
e) Is a compatible (or alternative) add-on available, may be form 
other source than AMO?


You can easily add your observations on the wiki page (it's not a 
problem to subscribe and to get an account).
Or if you do not want to edit the page, you can add a posting here in 
the thread as I will do for an add-on in few minutes here.


Come on, anybody here who will start with a statement concerning 
Automatic Save Folder 1.0.4  
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/automatic-save-folder/?


Thank you in advance and best regards

Rainer Bielefeld


Extensions are working and running on both, an 8 × Intel Core i7-920 / 
16GB 3ch.DDR3 workstation PC, and an 4 × Intel Core i3-3240T / 
3.7GB1ch.DDR3 desktop PC.
kubuntu-linux 3.13.0-48-generic #80-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 12 11:16:15 UTC 
2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

English (United States)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:40.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/40.0 
SeaMonkey/2.37a1 ID:20150414045718 CSet: 64c2c682adb6
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:40.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/40.0 
SeaMonkey/2.37a1 ID:20150422171601 CSet: 2436c290a3e3


calculator-1.1.32 
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/299148/calculator-1.1.32-sm+fx.xpi
converted via http://addonconverter.fotokraina.com/ works A1 and 
doesn't appear to be interfering with other SM functions.


Konquefox 1.8.2 
http://addonconverter.fotokraina.com/?url=https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/konquefox/

works and does not seem to interfere with any other functions.

Lightbird 0.3.4 
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/seamonkey/addon/lightbird/ 
conditionally works (given my limited-testing).


PDF Viewer 1.1.26 does still work okay.
PDF viewer 1.1.67 doesn't 
work.http://addonconverter.fotokraina.com/?url=http://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/extensions/firefox/pdf.js.xpi
or even directly from 
http://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/extensions/firefox/pdf.js.xpi



Printing Tools 1.1.2 and 1.2.5 
http://addonconverter.fotokraina.com/?url=https://addons.mozilla.org/thunderbird/downloads/file/275646/printingtools-1.2.5-tb.xpiboth 
work perfectly in this and recent trunk builds, so their behaviour bodes 
well, for future releases. (This extension strips headers from messages, 
i.e., only prints message-body text, etcetera.)


 SQLite Manager 0.8.3 
https://addons.mozilla.org/seamonkey/downloads/latest/5817/addon-5817-latest.xpi 
works for me.


Word Count Plus 1.2.3 
http://downloads.mozdev.org/wordcountplus/wordcountplus-1.2.3.xpi 
works for me, counts characters and words.
Word Count Plus 1.3.0 http://wordcountplus.mozdev.org/betarelease.html 
doesn't work at all, an won't even install the status-bar-icon, that's 
needed to operate functions.




___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility - Controle de Scripts 1.0.3 - CS Lite Mod 1.4.9 - RefControl 0.8.17 - Flashblock 1.5.19a - Force Content-Type 1.2.2 - Long URL Please Mod 0.5.1 - MR Tech Toolkit 6.0

[EE]

Rainer Bielefeld wrote:

EE schrieb:


I can add a few more observations to the lists.


Hi,

thank you for info, I will add it soon.

Can you please add info concerning your test environemnt (OS, SM
version, UI language) and whether all these add-ons have been installed
for your latest SM? I remember that I already had the experience that an
addon installed some SM versions worked until I tried to install the
same addon version for the latest version.

Best regards


Rainer Bielefeld


Those extensions do work for SM 2.33.1, except there is a small problem 
with YesScript 2.1 (no icon).  I had to copy chrome.manifest from 2.0 
into 2.1 to fix it.  I began using most of those extensions with SM 
2.20, which is when I began using SeaMonkey.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility

[EE]

Rainer Bielefeld wrote:

Hi all,

it would be great if some of you could share their experience with
add-on compatibility. It would be a horrible work for a single person to
leave comments on https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat
SeaMonkey/AddonCompat for all the liste add-ons (and there might exist
hundreds or thousands not listet there). But if lots of users only leave
1 comment / each that page might become a useful data base, soon.

The core questions are:
a) Is the original add-on (download from AMO) compatible?
b) Is the compatibility rating on AMO page correct (sometimes
you will find a warning not available for SM 2.33.1, but
Installed Addon will work fine
c) If not compatible, what minor or serious problems have
been observed with what test environment?
d) If original add-on is not compatible, does converted Version
(see https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat work or
what minor or serious problems have
been observed with what test environment?
e) Is a compatible (or alternative) add-on available, may be form other
source than AMO?

You can easily add your observations on the wiki page (it's not a
problem to subscribe and to get an account).
Or if you do not want to edit the page, you can add a posting here in
the thread as I will do for an add-on in few minutes here.

Come on, anybody here who will start with a statement concerning
Automatic Save Folder 1.0.4 
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/automatic-save-folder/?

Thank you in advance and best regards

Rainer Bielefeld


I can add a few more observations to the lists.
Extensions that work with SM:
Redirect Cleaner 3.0.0
Tiny Javascript Debugger 1.0.1
YesScript 2.1

Work after bumping up the max version:
Controle de Scripts 1.0.3
CS Lite Mod 1.4.9
RefControl 0.8.17

Work after conversion:
Flashblock 1.5.19a - not sure about that version - maybe 1.5.18b?
Force Content-Type 1.2.2
Long URL Please Mod 0.5.1
MR Tech Toolkit 6.0.4.9000 (not from AMO)
   - 6.0.4 works to some degree as well
URL n Extension Block 2.9.20

Not work at all:
Manually Sort Folders (Tbird)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility - Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon 0.9.2 + Adblock Plus 2.6.9

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Lemon Juice schrieb:

There is an error in the wiki


Hallo,

thank you for the hint, I corrected.

Best regards

Rainer
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility

[gneandr]

Just checked with Reminderfox installing from AMO for
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:39.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/39.0 SeaMonkey/2.36a2


No problem, should be marked as compatible.

Guenter

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility - Controle de Scripts 1.0.3 - CS Lite Mod 1.4.9 - RefControl 0.8.17 - Flashblock 1.5.19a - Force Content-Type 1.2.2 - Long URL Please Mod 0.5.1 - MR Tech Toolkit 6.0

[Rainer Bielefeld]

EE schrieb:


I can add a few more observations to the lists.


Hi,

thank you for info, I will add it soon.

Can you please add info concerning your test environemnt (OS, SM 
version, UI language) and whether all these add-ons have been installed 
for your latest SM? I remember that I already had the experience that an 
addon installed some SM versions worked until I tried to install the 
same addon version for the latest version.


Best regards


Rainer Bielefeld
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Hi all,

it would be great if some of you could share their experience with 
add-on compatibility. It would be a horrible work for a single person to 
leave comments on https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat 
SeaMonkey/AddonCompat for all the liste add-ons (and there might exist 
hundreds or thousands not listet there). But if lots of users only leave 
1 comment / each that page might become a useful data base, soon.


The core questions are:
a) Is the original add-on (download from AMO) compatible?
b) Is the compatibility rating on AMO page correct (sometimes
   you will find a warning not available for SM 2.33.1, but
   Installed Addon will work fine
c) If not compatible, what minor or serious problems have
   been observed with what test environment?
d) If original add-on is not compatible, does converted Version
   (see https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/AddonCompat work or
   what minor or serious problems have
   been observed with what test environment?
e) Is a compatible (or alternative) add-on available, may be form other 
source than AMO?


You can easily add your observations on the wiki page (it's not a 
problem to subscribe and to get an account).
Or if you do not want to edit the page, you can add a posting here in 
the thread as I will do for an add-on in few minutes here.


Come on, anybody here who will start with a statement concerning 
Automatic Save Folder 1.0.4  
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/automatic-save-folder/?


Thank you in advance and best regards

Rainer Bielefeld
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility - Ghostery 5.4.3

[Rainer Bielefeld]

Hello,

here an example for shared experience (please open a new sub thread for 
ever add-on and add the add-on name to Summary):




Ghostery 5.4.3 _converted_version_
works fine with EN-US Seamonkey 2.33.1 (German Language pack) 
Gecko/20100101 Build 20150321194901 (Default Theme) on German WIN7 64bit
Very tricky, but seldom problem reported in bug 1154608 Websites not 
loaded when Ghostery-add-on and private window active  
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1154608




(this is already integrated into wiki page SeaMonkey/AddonCompat)

Best regards

Rainer Bielefeld
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SeaMonkey add-on-compatibility

[Lemon Juice]

There is an error in the wiki in the Converted Version Compatible 
section - the first item says Adblock Plus 2.6.8 but actually should 
be Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon 0.9.2. The convert link is correct, 
though. Adblock Plus does not need conversion for SeaMonkey :)


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Yahoo Mail compatibility

[Steven Lee]

Hi,
Just to inform you folks that Seamonkey v2.21 ( I am using) is not fully 
compatible with the new Yahoo email format just introduced. The square icon 
boxes and associated email icons are not displayed properly. Still can read 
emails but the icons links looks out of place. Hope you folks are aware !! Thks.

 
Best Regards,
Steve
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Yahoo Mail compatibility

[WaltS]

Steven Lee wrote:

Hi,
Just to inform you folks that Seamonkey v2.21 ( I am using) is not fully 
compatible with the new Yahoo email format just introduced. The square icon 
boxes and associated email icons are not displayed properly. Still can read 
emails but the icons links looks out of place. Hope you folks are aware !! Thks.


Best Regards,
Steve




We folks are a user to user support community not associated with Mozilla.

Are you referring to email headers not appearing the way they do on the 
Yahoo site, or email folders?


All of my folders look normal.

In my Yahoo mail I see Reply, Reply All or Forward | More in the email 
body, that don't appear in my SeaMonkey. Is that what you are talking about?


SeaMonkey has its own mail toolbar that should be used.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Daniel]

Desiree wrote:

On 8/8/2013 3:05 AM, Daniel wrote:

I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install
Adobe Flash Player.
__

I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked
on??


It's WebM compliant like Fx. Not H.264 which IE.  That video plays in
Flash and it irritates me that SM will not honor my Plugin settings
whenever I update it. I had Flash disabled. The upgrade to SM 2.20
enabled Flash without my permission.  Once I disabled Flash again, that
video would not play. Evidently, it is not an HTML5 video.


Desiree, didn't I read somewhere, the release notes maybe, that the Devs 
have changed how the extension/add-ons are dealt with from 2.20 onwards, 
so I'd suggest they enabled all extension/add-ons to bring this to the 
users notice.


Guess I'll have to get Flash up and running!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405


or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.20 Build identifier: 20130709211044

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Daniel]

PhillipJones wrote:

Daniel wrote:

I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install
Adobe Flash Player.
__

I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked
on??


In SM 2.20 b3 both work perfect


Something must be wrong if it works in Mac but not in Linux!! ;-p Just 
joking, Phillip!


--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405


or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.20 Build identifier: 20130709211044

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Daniel]

Hartmut Figge wrote:

Daniel:


I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install
Adobe Flash Player.
__


Same here with SM 2.23a1, if i disable Flash.


I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked
on??


The missing FF in your and mine UA? Don't remember at the moment, how to
enable this.

Hartmut


Prefs-Advanced-HTTP Networking ... Advertise FF

I'll re-boot and report back

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405


or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.20 Build identifier: 20130709211044

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Daniel]

Daniel wrote:

Hartmut Figge wrote:

Daniel:


I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install
Adobe Flash Player.
__


Same here with SM 2.23a1, if i disable Flash.


I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked
on??


The missing FF in your and mine UA? Don't remember at the moment, how to
enable this.

Hartmut


Prefs-Advanced-HTTP Networking ... Advertise FF

I'll re-boot and report back


Now got it enabled, but still getting warning about H.264 compatibility.

Is this because I'm on SM 2.20b2, rather than b3 as Phillip Jones 
mentions *or* because I don't have a suitable codec as mentioned by 
Phillip Chee?


--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405


or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.20 Build identifier: 20130709211044

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Desiree]

On 8/8/2013 3:05 AM, Daniel wrote:

I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install
Adobe Flash Player.
__

I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked
on??

It's WebM compliant like Fx. Not H.264 which IE.  That video plays in 
Flash and it irritates me that SM will not honor my Plugin settings 
whenever I update it. I had Flash disabled. The upgrade to SM 2.20 
enabled Flash without my permission.  Once I disabled Flash again, that 
video would not play. Evidently, it is not an HTML5 video.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

SM H.264 compatibility

[Daniel]

I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445 
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...


This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install 
Adobe Flash Player.

__

I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked 
on??


--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405


or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.20 Build identifier: 20130709211044

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Hartmut Figge]

Daniel:

I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445 
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install 
Adobe Flash Player.
__

Same here with SM 2.23a1, if i disable Flash.

I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked 
on??

The missing FF in your and mine UA? Don't remember at the moment, how to
enable this.

Hartmut
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[Philip Chee]

On 08/08/2013 21:05, Daniel wrote:
 I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445 
 and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...
 
 This video can't be played with your current setup.
 Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install 
 Adobe Flash Player.
 __
 
 I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked 
 on??

Recent versions of SeaMonkey will run H.264 *if* you have a suitable
codec installed on your OS.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[PhillipJones]

Daniel wrote:

I just went to a couple of vimeo.com pages, http://vimeo.com/70757445
and http://vimeo.com/70518741, and was told that ...

This video can't be played with your current setup.
Please switch to a browser that provides native H.264 support or install
Adobe Flash Player.
__

I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked
on??


In SM 2.20 b3 both work perfect

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.  If it's Fixed, Don't Break it
http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjones...@comcast.net
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: SM H.264 compatibility

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 08/08/2013 12:20, Philip Chee told the world:
 On 08/08/2013 21:05, Daniel wrote:
 I thought SM was H.264 compliant, or, am I mistaken and its being worked 
 on??
 
 Recent versions of SeaMonkey will run H.264 *if* you have a suitable
 codec installed on your OS.

Is there a reference on suitable codecs?


-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Altair 8800.
* Added by TagZilla 0.7a1 running on Seamonkey 2.20 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Flash player, Java compatibility with SeaMonkey

[robert171]

To whom it may concern,


I have Seamonkey 2.15.2 installed on a windows 7-64 bit machine. I can 
not get any video with Seamonkey.
I have installed Adobe flash player version 11.5.502.147 and it does not 
recognize Seamonkey and Seamonkey does not recognize the player.


Also I installed the latest Java version 7 update 13 and Seamonkey does 
not recognize the java upgrade.
When I click on Help and then go to About plugins it takes me to the 
Mozilla Firefox website.  The website says
For your safety, Firefox has disabled your outdated version of Java. 
Please upgrade to the latest version.

Even though I have downloaded and installed the latest version of Java.

*Can you fix this*. I never had problems with SeaMonkey using earlier 
versions.


I use SeaMonkey because I more control of the Software then FireFox.

Robert
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: compatibility?

[sean nathan]

WaltS wrote, On 11/28/2012 10:53 AM:

sean nathan wrote:

am i missing something? or is my brain just failing me? wasn't there a
way to force installation of addons? 2.1.4 broke my jslib, tagzilla and
fbpurity again...

I'd go searching for previous solution in the newsgroup, but advance
search in NGs now throws up an error message A News (NNTP) error
occurred: chaining not allowed

sean


I have Nightly Tester Tools installed in my SeaMonkey 214, which has a
Force Addon Compatibility menu item.


thnks, i'd deleted that NNT a while back after it too had quit 
working... back in the mix now and and i have 2 of the 3 reinstalled...


sean



--
... Shadows are falling and I'm running out of breath
Keep me in your heart for awhile
If I leave you it doesn't mean I love you any less
Keep me in your heart for awhile.
~Warren Zevon  Jorge Calderon in Keep Me in Your Heart
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

compatibility?

[sean nathan]

am i missing something? or is my brain just failing me? wasn't there a 
way to force installation of addons? 2.1.4 broke my jslib, tagzilla and 
fbpurity again...


I'd go searching for previous solution in the newsgroup, but advance 
search in NGs now throws up an error message A News (NNTP) error 
occurred: chaining not allowed


sean
--
dangnabbitall... tagzilla's broken again...
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: compatibility?

[WaltS]

sean nathan wrote:
 am i missing something? or is my brain just failing me? wasn't there a
 way to force installation of addons? 2.1.4 broke my jslib, tagzilla and
 fbpurity again...
 
 I'd go searching for previous solution in the newsgroup, but advance
 search in NGs now throws up an error message A News (NNTP) error
 occurred: chaining not allowed
 
 sean

I have Nightly Tester Tools installed in my SeaMonkey 214, which has a
Force Addon Compatibility menu item.



-- 
WaltS using Fedora 17 (64-bit)
KDE 4.9.2
SeaMonkey Release
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: compatibility?

[Ed Mullen]

WaltS wrote:

sean nathan wrote:

am i missing something? or is my brain just failing me? wasn't there a
way to force installation of addons? 2.1.4 broke my jslib, tagzilla and
fbpurity again...

I'd go searching for previous solution in the newsgroup, but advance
search in NGs now throws up an error message A News (NNTP) error
occurred: chaining not allowed

sean


I have Nightly Tester Tools installed in my SeaMonkey 214, which has a
Force Addon Compatibility menu item.





Or you can try downloading the .xpi file, open in Winzip or such, open 
the install.rdf file, change the max version number, save the file. 
Winzip will prompt if you kwant to update the zip/xpi file:  Say yes. 
Find the .xpi file where you put it, drag it and drop it into a browser 
window to install.


--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 11:23 PM:

On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
You 
should bring this up to the owner's attention.




I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

*  The AMO site provides no contact info.

*  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
confusing about reporting problems.

*  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.


Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 11:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.


 I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

 *  The AMO site provides no contact info.

 *  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
 confusing about reporting problems.

 *  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

 Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?
 

Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
post new topics.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/23/2012 10:08 AM:

On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 11:23 PM:

On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
You 
should bring this up to the owner's attention.



I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

*  The AMO site provides no contact info.

*  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
confusing about reporting problems.

*  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.


Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?



Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
post new topics.

If there were recent posts from others, maybe there's a registration 
required?


--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Jens Hatlak]

NoOp wrote:

Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?


Hardly. First of all, the ACR is a Mozilla product, i.e. its main focus 
is Firefox and possibly Thunderbird. Secondly, it's not the right 
approach. The goal should be to get the add-on authors to update their 
creations. At least that's what I think and what I've been doing.



For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
modified install.rdf:

- Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
- Password Exporter 1.2.1


For the latter, Philip Chee provides an updated version here:
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmisc.html#passwordexporter


But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.


The ACR enables you to provide feedback to the add-on author, but only 
if you do not fake the compatibility information yourself. Until 
compatible-by-default add-ons were introduced (starting with SM 2.7, 
which you seem to run), the ACR allowed to install any add-on that ever 
claimed to work with SM. Now it refuses that if the add-on is not 
compatible with at least SM 2.1 (which was the release matching FF 4, 
which is also FF's cut-off version for compatible-by-default).


Now I'm not exactly sure whether the old extensions.checkCompatibility.* 
preferences still work, but I think it's worth a try. With trunk it's 
probably easiest to install the Nightly Tester Tools add-on, but I'm not 
sure whether it sets the necessary prefs for branches like the ACR did. 
Maybe the Disable Add-on Compatibility Checks add-on does the trick; 
didn't try it myself.


HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/23/12 10:23 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/23/2012 10:08 AM:
 On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 11:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.

 I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

 *  The AMO site provides no contact info.

 *  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
 confusing about reporting problems.

 *  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

 Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?


 Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
 reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
 post new topics.

 If there were recent posts from others, maybe there's a registration 
 required?
 

I suspect registration and login are actually required.  However, at the
top of http://nc.ddns.us/forum/, there is the statement, all in bold:
Registration is NOT required to post in user forums. with NOT
underlined.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/23/12 4:56 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/23/12 10:23 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/23/2012 10:08 AM:
 On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 11:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.

 I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

 *  The AMO site provides no contact info.

 *  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
 confusing about reporting problems.

 *  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

 Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?


 Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
 reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
 post new topics.

 If there were recent posts from others, maybe there's a registration 
 required?

 
 I suspect registration and login are actually required.  However, at the
 top of http://nc.ddns.us/forum/, there is the statement, all in bold:
 Registration is NOT required to post in user forums. with NOT
 underlined.
 

When I went to register so that I could then login, the registration
page contained: This forum is not accepting new registrations.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

[Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[NoOp]

On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
 
 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History page.
 
 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
 
 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
...

Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
modified install.rdf:

- Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
- Password Exporter 1.2.1

But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).

 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History page.

 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.

 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
 ...
 
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?
 
 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:
 
 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1
 
 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.
 
 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
 
 

Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
containing the following:

  !--SeaMonkey--
  Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
   em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
   em:minVersion=2.0a1
   em:maxVersion=2.6.*
  /

Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[NoOp]

On 01/22/2012 05:23 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
...
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?
 
 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:
 
 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1
 
 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.
 
 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
...
 
 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:
 
   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /
 
 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?
 

IMO yes.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[NoOp]

On 01/22/2012 05:53 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 05:23 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 ...
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?
 
 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:
 
 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1
 
 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.
 
 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
 ...
 
 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:
 
   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /
 
 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?
 
 
 IMO yes.

BetterPrivacy Version History
Version 1.68 Released January 20, 2012 138.2 KB Works with Firefox 3.5 -
11.*

However when I attempt to install in 2.7b4 I see that it thinks that I
have Firefox 2.7, when in actuality I have:

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120119
Firefox/10.0 SeaMonkey/2.7

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/versions/?page=1#version-1.68
Add to Firefox
Not available for Firefox 2.7

So I think there is an issue with the AMO not detecting the correct
version of SeaMonkey.

However it works if I use FF:
Mozilla/5.0 (Ubuntu; X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1

Or:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20110929 Firefox/10.0a1





___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 5:23 PM:

On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:

On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History page.



By the way, selecting the link
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
redirects to
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).

...

Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
modified install.rdf:

- Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
- Password Exporter 1.2.1

But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.




Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
containing the following:

  !--SeaMonkey--
  Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
   em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
   em:minVersion=2.0a1
   em:maxVersion=2.6.*
  /

Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?

That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format 
looks something like:


!-- SeaMonkey --

em:targetApplication
  Description
em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
em:minVersion1.0/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
  /Description
/em:targetApplication

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/22/12 6:08 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 05:53 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 05:23 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 ...
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:

 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1

 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
 ...

 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:

   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /

 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?


 IMO yes.
 
 BetterPrivacy Version History
 Version 1.68 Released January 20, 2012 138.2 KB Works with Firefox 3.5 -
 11.*
 
 However when I attempt to install in 2.7b4 I see that it thinks that I
 have Firefox 2.7, when in actuality I have:
 
 Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120119
 Firefox/10.0 SeaMonkey/2.7
 
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/versions/?page=1#version-1.68
 Add to Firefox
 Not available for Firefox 2.7
 
 So I think there is an issue with the AMO not detecting the correct
 version of SeaMonkey.
 
 However it works if I use FF:
 Mozilla/5.0 (Ubuntu; X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1
 
 Or:
 Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20110929 Firefox/10.0a1

I've disabled Advertise Firefox compatibility, so my UA string is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20111221 SeaMonkey/2.6.1

This should satisfy
em:maxVersion=2.6.*

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/22/12 7:07 PM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 5:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History 
 page.

 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
 ...

 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:

 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1

 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.



 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:

   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /

 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?

 That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format 
 looks something like:
 
  !-- SeaMonkey --
 
  em:targetApplication
Description
  em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
  em:minVersion1.0/em:minVersion
  em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
/Description
  /em:targetApplication
 

I tried editing install.rdf to look that way.  It did not help.  And
yes, I know I edited correctly.  I've successfully edited install.rdf
files in quite a few other extensions.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 7:17 PM:


[snip /]


I tried editing install.rdf to look that way.  It did not help.  And
yes, I know I edited correctly.  I've successfully edited install.rdf
files in quite a few other extensions.

At minimum, it's something in his install.rdf file. I converted it to 
the new format and it at least install okay, see:



?xml version=1.0?

RDF xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
 xmlns:em=http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#;

  Description about=urn:mozilla:install-manifest
em:id{d40f5e7b-d2cf-4856-b441-cc613eeffbe3}/em:id
em:version1.68/em:version

!-- Firefox --

em:targetApplication
  Description
em:id{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/em:id
em:minVersion3.5/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion11.*/em:maxVersion
  /Description
/em:targetApplication

!-- SeaMonkey --

em:targetApplication
  Description
em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
em:minVersion2.0a1/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
  /Description
/em:targetApplication

!-- Front End MetaData --
em:nameBetterPrivacy/em:name
em:type2/em:type
em:descriptionquot;Super-Cookie Safeguardquot;/em:description
em:creatorGreg Yardley (version 0.2) www.yardley.ca/em:creator
em:contributorIcon: Lint Hasenpfeffer (concept by Evan Eckard), 
Code improvements: Ximin Luo, Locales: DE by Endor and others by 
BabelZilla team/em:contributor

em:homepageURLhttp://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html/em:homepageURL
em:developerhttp://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html/em:developer

em:optionsURLchrome://bprivacy/content/bprivacyopt.xul/em:optionsURL

em:aboutURLhttp://www.projectit.com/inspectorwidget-about.xul/em:aboutURL
em:iconURLchrome://bprivacy/content/pie.png/em:iconURL

  /Description
/RDF


I didn't try it on Facebook so there may be other issues with it. You 
should bring this up to the owner's attention.


--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Philip Chee]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:07:39 -0800, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 5:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History 
 page.

 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
 ...

 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:

 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1

 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.


 
 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:
 
   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /
 
 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?
 
 That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format 
 looks something like:
 
  !-- SeaMonkey --
 
  em:targetApplication
Description
  em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
  em:minVersion1.0/em:minVersion
  em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
/Description
  /em:targetApplication

There is no such thing as old/new RDF format. These two are identical as
far as RDF is concerned. RDF is a directed graph. The problem is that
there are an infinite number of ways a RDF graph can be serialized out
to disk. The first version listed above is probably written out by the
Gecko RDF serializer (the code of which is old crufty). The second
version listed above was created manually by someone typing it in with a
text editor. When both versions are read into memory and de-serialized,
the internal representation in RAM is the same.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Philip Chee graced us with on 
1/22/2012 8:11 PM:


[snip /]


There is no such thing as old/new RDF format. These two are identical as
far as RDF is concerned. RDF is a directed graph. The problem is that
there are an infinite number of ways a RDF graph can be serialized out
to disk. The first version listed above is probably written out by the
Gecko RDF serializer (the code of which is old crufty). The second
version listed above was created manually by someone typing it in with a
text editor. When both versions are read into memory and de-serialized,
the internal representation in RAM is the same.

Okay, but as my last post indicates, I simply took the values from the 
BetterPrivacy crufty RDF file and added them using the new format then 
replaced the install.rdf file in the XPI file and it installed splendidly.


Dunno?

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

[David E. Ross]

On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.
 

I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

*  The AMO site provides no contact info.

*  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
confusing about reporting problems.

*  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

chicagofan wrote:

 Last year Google enabled users of their search page to use images on the 
 search page.  I have never been able to use this feature.  Is this a problem 
 with the SM Google access... or something else?  The link for this option 
 never shows up as Google said it would, and searching around their pages, 
 I've never found a way to do it manually.
 
 Do I need to use FF or install Chrome, to use that feature?  I hope not... 
 I'd really like to use it and would appreciate any advice.  TIA
 bj

This was working wonderfully for me, and then disappeared,
as did the option to (re-)instate it.  All I got was a horrible
blue smear pointing at Web.  Having spent some time tracking
down the cause, I find that it is because I have disabled the
option (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).

As I do not wish to falsely claim  that I am using Firefox, I have
installed the PrefBar add-on and added the UA string :

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902; Firefox/6.0.2 
compatible; SeaMonkey/2.3.3

(i.e., the default UA string with the addition of the word compatible and 
some semi-colons).

I would /prefer/ not to have to use an add-on to accomplish this.  Is there
an about:config setting (or similar) that will allow me to modify the
default User Agent string directly ?

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Daniel]

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:



chicagofan wrote:


Last year Google enabled users of their search page to use images on the search 
page.  I have never been able to use this feature.  Is this a problem with the 
SM Google access... or something else?  The link for this option never shows up 
as Google said it would, and searching around their pages, I've never found a 
way to do it manually.

Do I need to use FF or install Chrome, to use that feature?  I hope not... I'd 
really like to use it and would appreciate any advice.  TIA
bj


This was working wonderfully for me, and then disappeared,
as did the option to (re-)instate it.  All I got was a horrible
blue smear pointing at Web.  Having spent some time tracking
down the cause, I find that it is because I have disabled the
option (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).

As I do not wish to falsely claim  that I am using Firefox, I have
installed the PrefBar add-on and added the UA string :

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902; Firefox/6.0.2 
compatible; SeaMonkey/2.3.3

(i.e., the default UA string with the addition of the word compatible and 
some semi-colons).

I would /prefer/ not to have to use an add-on to accomplish this.  Is there
an about:config setting (or similar) that will allow me to modify the
default User Agent string directly ?

Philip Taylor


Philip, rather than about:config you can 
Edit-Preferences-Advanced-HTTP Networking and then under User Agent 
String, tick the box for Advertise Firefox compatibility.


HTH

--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

Daniel wrote:
 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:

 Having spent some time tracking down the cause, I find that it is
 because I have disabled the option
 (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).

 Philip, rather than about:config you can Edit-Preferences-Advanced-HTTP 
 Networking and then under User Agent String, tick the box for Advertise 
 Firefox compatibility.

Yes, but then it claims to /be/ Firefox, not to be compatible therewith.
That was the point of the question.  I do not want my User Agent to lie --
I don't, so why should it, on my behalf ?

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Jay Garcia]

On 21.09.2011 06:49, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

 
 
 
 Daniel wrote:
 Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
 
 Having spent some time tracking down the cause, I find that it is
 because I have disabled the option
 (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).
 
 Philip, rather than about:config you can Edit-Preferences-Advanced-HTTP 
 Networking and then under User Agent String, tick the box for Advertise 
 Firefox compatibility.
 
 Yes, but then it claims to /be/ Firefox, not to be compatible therewith.
 That was the point of the question.  I do not want my User Agent to lie --
 I don't, so why should it, on my behalf ?
 
 Philip Taylor

I'm confused, you said:

  because I have disabled the option
 (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).

So if that's the case then re-enable it, yes?

-- 
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

Jay Garcia wrote:

 I'm confused, you said:
 
  because I have disabled the option
 (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).
 
 So if that's the case then re-enable it, yes?

I must be explaining myself very badly today, so let
me try to spell things out more simply :

1) I would like to be able to use the Google search page wallpaper feature,
in order to avoid the ugly, distracting, blue smeary arrow that
has recently started to appear.

2) To do this, it would seem that I need to include the string Firefox
(and perhaps some version number) in my User Agent string.

3) If I enable the option Advertise Firefox compatibility, Seamonkey
instead pretends to /be/ Firefox, in that it includes the
string Gecko/20110902 Firefox/6.0.2 SeaMonkey/2.3.3

in the User Agent string.
4) I do not want Seamonkey to pretend to be Firefox (which it is not);
I simply wish it to assert that it is Firefox-compatible.

5) Therefore I wish to modify the User Agent string to contain the phrase
Firefox/6.0.2 compatible rather than just Firefox/6.0.2 as
currently occurs.

6) So I would like to ask : Is there an 'about:config' variable (or analogous 
means)
by which I can modify the default User Agent string.

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 21/09/2011 09:36, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
told the world:

 5) Therefore I wish to modify the User Agent string to contain the phrase
   Firefox/6.0.2 compatible rather than just Firefox/6.0.2 as
   currently occurs.

You might wish to reconsider that particular string; it has been pointed
out, in a different thread, that many browser-sniffing scripts consider
the presence of the word compatible as proof positive that you are
using Internet Explorer -- and therefore start serving you pages tweaked
to fit the IE rendering bugs.

Many users have been using NOT Firefox/6.0.2 or similar constructs
with reasonable success.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Filofax.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.3.3 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Ray_Net]

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 21/09/2011 09:36, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
told the world:


5) Therefore I wish to modify the User Agent string to contain the phrase
Firefox/6.0.2 compatible rather than just Firefox/6.0.2 as
currently occurs.


You might wish to reconsider that particular string; it has been pointed
out, in a different thread, that many browser-sniffing scripts consider
the presence of the word compatible as proof positive that you are
using Internet Explorer -- and therefore start serving you pages tweaked
to fit the IE rendering bugs.

Many users have been using NOT Firefox/6.0.2 or similar constructs
with reasonable success.



The question is: How to insert  NOT Firefox/6.0.2 in the UA string
*without* using an ADDON like PrefBar ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

MCBastos wrote:

 5) Therefore I wish to modify the User Agent string to contain the phrase
  Firefox/6.0.2 compatible rather than just Firefox/6.0.2 as
  currently occurs.

 You might wish to reconsider that particular string; it has been pointed
 out, in a different thread, that many browser-sniffing scripts consider
 the presence of the word compatible as proof positive that you are
 using Internet Explorer -- and therefore start serving you pages tweaked
 to fit the IE rendering bugs.

 Many users have been using NOT Firefox/6.0.2 or similar constructs
 with reasonable success.

I'm not irrevocably wedded to the exact wording; rather, it is the
existence (or otherwise) of a clean mechanism for defining the
User Agent string that I am attempting to elucidate ...

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[cmcadams]

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:




Daniel wrote:

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:



Having spent some time tracking down the cause, I find that it is
because I have disabled the option
(Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).



Philip, rather than about:config you can Edit-Preferences-Advanced-HTTP Networking 
and then under User Agent String, tick the box for Advertise Firefox compatibility.


Yes, but then it claims to /be/ Firefox, not to be compatible therewith.
That was the point of the question.  I do not want my User Agent to lie --
I don't, so why should it, on my behalf ?


Is it actually lying when the only 'entity' that will ever see it is another 
computer? And when there are neither moral or ethical implications? Some might call 
it a work-around.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

cmcadams wrote:

 Is it actually lying when the only 'entity' that will ever see it is another 
 computer?
 And when there are neither moral or ethical implications? Some might call it 
 a work-around.

I would argue that there are ethical implications.  It is
a User Agent.  It acts on my behalf.   I do not want it
to lie on my behalf, particularly when there is no need for
it to do so.  It could say Firefox whatever compatible,
Shares code with Firefox whatever, Uses the same
rendering engine as Firefox whatever or any of a million
other valid descriptions, all of which would allow Google
and similar sites to treat it as Firefox.  It does not
need to lie.

Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:


I must be explaining myself very badly today, so let me try to spell
things out more simply :


No, your statements have been very clear. It's just that when you say 
something your listener/reader finds implausible or unexpected, they 
tend to think you must mean to say something else. Sometimes they do it 
consciously, but often they don't even realize they're correcting your 
words in their minds.


I know it can be frustrating, but it's how most listeners and readers 
operate.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[cmcadams]

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:



cmcadams wrote:


Is it actually lying when the only 'entity' that will ever see it is another 
computer?
And when there are neither moral or ethical implications? Some might call it a 
work-around.


I would argue that there are ethical implications.  It is
a User Agent.  It acts on my behalf.   I do not want it
to lie on my behalf, particularly when there is no need for
it to do so.  It could say Firefoxwhatever  compatible,
Shares code with Firefoxwhatever, Uses the same
rendering engine as Firefoxwhatever or any of a million
other valid descriptions, all of which would allow Google
and similar sites to treat it as Firefox.  It does not
need to lie.


Ethical implications in the abstract sense of giving people who have misprogrammed 
servers a pass for undesirable behavior, perhaps. Okay. On the other hand I don't 
think any bad karma attaches to misleading a computer.


If the preferable alternatives you describe fail to work then I'd argue that there IS 
a need to 'lie'. On the evidence I'd say SM's developers agree. The downside is that 
the malefactors fail to learn, but since we have no apparent leverage in that regard 
the point's moot.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[NoOp]

On 09/21/2011 05:36 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
...
 I must be explaining myself very badly today, so let
 me try to spell things out more simply 

You are as you are hijacking the original thread...
[SM 2.0.10 - Google images problem]
Start a new thread.
...
 5) Therefore I wish to modify the User Agent string to contain the phrase
   Firefox/6.0.2 compatible rather than just Firefox/6.0.2 as
   currently occurs.
 
 6) So I would like to ask : Is there an 'about:config' variable (or 
 analogous means)
   by which I can modify the default User Agent string.

There was until this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=581008
[Remove support for appending arbitrary data to the User Agent string]

Now, how about starting your own thread rather than using SM 2.0.10 -
Google images problem for your issue?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Google images problem and Advertise Firefox compatibility

[Paul]

Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:


chicagofan wrote:


Last year Google enabled users of their search page to use images on the search 
page.  I have never been able to use this feature.  Is this a problem with the 
SM Google access... or something else?  The link for this option never shows up 
as Google said it would, and searching around their pages, I've never found a 
way to do it manually.

Do I need to use FF or install Chrome, to use that feature?  I hope not... I'd 
really like to use it and would appreciate any advice.  TIA
bj


This was working wonderfully for me, and then disappeared,
as did the option to (re-)instate it.  All I got was a horrible
blue smear pointing at Web.  Having spent some time tracking
down the cause, I find that it is because I have disabled the
option (Advanced / HTTP Networking / Advertise Firefox compatibility).

As I do not wish to falsely claim  that I am using Firefox, I have
installed the PrefBar add-on and added the UA string :

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902; Firefox/6.0.2 
compatible; SeaMonkey/2.3.3

(i.e., the default UA string with the addition of the word compatible and 
some semi-colons).

I would /prefer/ not to have to use an add-on to accomplish this.  Is there
an about:config setting (or similar) that will allow me to modify the
default User Agent string directly ?

Philip Taylor


This is a portion of mine:  I use 1119.
Using about:config you can add what ever you want.
Mine says  Like Firefox.
general.useragent.extra.seamonkey2 userset string Like Firefox/3.0.
Just type in a new line for a new item.  Name each line slightly
different like  .seamonkey3 or .seamonkey4, etc.
My full string works fairly well on everything.

Each item requires a line in about config similar to the one above.
NOT Firefox/3.5 SeaMonkey/1.1.19 Like Firefox/3.0 Firefox/3.6.16 
Firefox/2.0.0.24

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Philip Chee]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:42:56 +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
 On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:57:50 +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
 https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/StatusMeetings/2011-06-14#Follow-ups
 
 InvisibleSmiley has started maintaining a list. He'll create a wiki
 page and post a newsgroup message regarding this.
 
 Can't find the wiki page. Please add:
 
 1. OpenDownload² 3.1.0.
 New testing build 3.1.0 works fine with seamonkey 2.1.
 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=10917803#p10917803
 
 2. Extension Options Menu / Themes Menu
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/extension-options-menu/
 SeaMonkey 2.1 port almost done except for a minor problem:
 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=10920275#p10920275
 
 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=10921787#p10921787
 Version 1.19 of Extension Options Menu supports SeaMonkey. It should be
 fully reviewed in the next week or so. You can get it by clicking the
 1.18 link in the release notes box on the add-on page.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=3t=2236433
SeaMonkey tab multiple handler

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility:

[sean nathan bean]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 6/22/11 10:19 AM, sean nathan bean wrote:

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 22/06/2011 01:36, sean nathan bean told the world:

wondering how this will work to get http://www.fbpurity.com/ working in
seamonkey...


Not at all. Advertising Firefox compatibility only helps to get dumb
browser-sniffing webpages to load correctly. Extension compatibility is
an entirely different subject.


t'was afraid of that.. nightly tester tools works differently now...
allowed installation of jslib and tagzilla, but not quote colors
norfbpurity...

oh well... any pointers on addon/extension compatibility?

sean



For extensions (XPI files), see my reply earlier today in this newsgroup
under the subject Can't download to install SM2.0 extensions on a
clean/new installed SM2.1?  Note that this will not always work because
some XPI files resist editing.

I believe the compatibility of plugins (DLL files) rests primarily with
the version of your operating system and only slightly with the version
of your browser.  I would be surprised if many plugins even check the
version of your browser.  However, they often do check the brand (e.g.,
IE, Chome, Firefox, SeaMonkey).

The difference arises from the fact that Add-ons Manager -- a component
of Firefox, SeaMonkey, Thunderbird, etc -- handles the installation of
extensions while your operating system handles the installation of
plugins.



i'm working primarily in linux these days, as my laptop is resisting any 
reclamation of its WinXP MCE partition...


again, pointers are very much appreciated...

sean


--
... For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people
 ~ Sam Levinson, American Author 1911-1980

* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility [and incompatible extension]

[sean nathan bean]

JeffM wrote:

MCBastos wrote:

Advertising Firefox compatibility
only helps to get dumb browser-sniffing webpages to load correctly.


I call those Web pages constructed by idiots
but you're a more kind and gentle soul than I am.


Extension compatibility is an entirely different subject.


I'm a one-step-at-a-time kind of guy.
The OP *could* have **downloaded** the XPI
(I'm ASSuMEing; I didn't go to the page[1])
then **installed** the extension from his own HDD.

At that point the website is out of the picture
and the failure mode becomes more obvious.
I recommed this technique for those having problems.
DO right-click and **download** when the option is available.
.
.
[1] ...and if the actual link to the downloadable file *wasn't*
available
and was instead buried behind scripting,
THAT would be the kind of thing that gives me a rash.


i have lots of lotion for the rash...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fb-purity-cleans-up-facebook/contribute/roadblock/?src=browseversion=4.5.2

don't see anyplace to download the .xpi

sean


--
... If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?

* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility:

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 22/06/2011 01:36, sean nathan bean told the world:
 wondering how this will work to get http://www.fbpurity.com/ working in 
 seamonkey...

Not at all. Advertising Firefox compatibility only helps to get dumb
browser-sniffing webpages to load correctly. Extension compatibility is
an entirely different subject.


-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... Sent from my Deep Thought.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility:

[sean nathan bean]

JeffM wrote:

sean nathan bean wrote:

it displays no problem,
but won't let me install the firefox compatible addon...


The version numbers of SeaMonkey
are at least one integer behind Firefox.
If an extension checks for a version number upon installation,
first, you better assure that the version numbers line up.


i'm new to user agent sniff/spoofing ... when i click to dowload the 
plugin from fbpurity.com site, the addon popup tells me it isn't 
compatible with seamonkey 2.1 ... so which about config file do i need 
to change... ? or is this not the intent of advertising firefox 
compatibility?


recent old laptop triage events have knocked my computer semi-pro 
status for several loops of late...


sean




--
... A nudist is just a person in a one-button suit.

* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility:

[sean nathan bean]

MCBastos wrote:

Interviewed by CNN on 22/06/2011 01:36, sean nathan bean told the world:

wondering how this will work to get http://www.fbpurity.com/ working in
seamonkey...


Not at all. Advertising Firefox compatibility only helps to get dumb
browser-sniffing webpages to load correctly. Extension compatibility is
an entirely different subject.


t'was afraid of that.. nightly tester tools works differently now... 
allowed installation of jslib and tagzilla, but not quote colors 
norfbpurity...


oh well... any pointers on addon/extension compatibility?

sean




--
... I have noticed that the people who are late are often so much 
jollier than

the people who have to wait for them

* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility:

[David E. Ross]

On 6/22/11 10:19 AM, sean nathan bean wrote:
 MCBastos wrote:
 Interviewed by CNN on 22/06/2011 01:36, sean nathan bean told the world:
 wondering how this will work to get http://www.fbpurity.com/ working in
 seamonkey...

 Not at all. Advertising Firefox compatibility only helps to get dumb
 browser-sniffing webpages to load correctly. Extension compatibility is
 an entirely different subject.
 
 t'was afraid of that.. nightly tester tools works differently now... 
 allowed installation of jslib and tagzilla, but not quote colors 
 norfbpurity...
 
 oh well... any pointers on addon/extension compatibility?
 
 sean
 

For extensions (XPI files), see my reply earlier today in this newsgroup
under the subject Can't download to install SM2.0 extensions on a
clean/new installed SM2.1?  Note that this will not always work because
some XPI files resist editing.

I believe the compatibility of plugins (DLL files) rests primarily with
the version of your operating system and only slightly with the version
of your browser.  I would be surprised if many plugins even check the
version of your browser.  However, they often do check the brand (e.g.,
IE, Chome, Firefox, SeaMonkey).

The difference arises from the fact that Add-ons Manager -- a component
of Firefox, SeaMonkey, Thunderbird, etc -- handles the installation of
extensions while your operating system handles the installation of
plugins.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

On occasion, I might filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
because of spam from that source.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Advertise Firefox compatibility [and incompatible extension]

[JeffM]

MCBastos wrote:
Advertising Firefox compatibility
only helps to get dumb browser-sniffing webpages to load correctly.

I call those Web pages constructed by idiots
but you're a more kind and gentle soul than I am.

Extension compatibility is an entirely different subject.

I'm a one-step-at-a-time kind of guy.
The OP *could* have **downloaded** the XPI
(I'm ASSuMEing; I didn't go to the page[1])
then **installed** the extension from his own HDD.

At that point the website is out of the picture
and the failure mode becomes more obvious.
I recommed this technique for those having problems.
DO right-click and **download** when the option is available.
.
.
[1] ...and if the actual link to the downloadable file *wasn't*
available
and was instead buried behind scripting,
THAT would be the kind of thing that gives me a rash.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

OT terminology (was:- Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility)

[Daniel]

Jens Hatlak wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:


snip



Technically, yes. But they are not officially incompatible, and that's
what counts as far as the the page I created is concerned.

Greetings,

Jens



Officially incompatible..does that go in the known knowns or the 
unknown unknowns column??


--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Jens Hatlak]

Steve Wendt wrote:

 I guess that leaves me only wondering why there is a need
for the AMO section, unless it is just a place to see that something
hasn't been forgotten from the list.


It's that, and that people may find extensions there that are available 
from AMO in addition to the place where they might have retrieved their 
versions from (say, the author's home page).


HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Neil]

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:


Also any fresh download from AMO will correct it.


My understanding was that the download doesn't change but when XPI 
doesn't claim compatibility then the Addon Manager will attempt to do an 
update check from AMO.


--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Robert Kaiser]

David E. Ross schrieb:

Are you saying that somewhere there is something that tells the Add-ons
Manager to ignore maxVersion in install.rdf?


Somehwhat. If install.rdf says it's incompatible, SeaMonkey sends a 
request to add-ons.mozilla.org to find out if something else is set 
there, and if so, uses that info for determining if it's actually 
compatible. So, in the end, if it's marked compatible there, it will work.


Robert Kaiser

--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never 
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible 
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the 
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Neil]

David E. Ross wrote:


However, this does not help with those extensions that are not at 
addons.mozilla.org; even with an Internet connection, they appear incompatible 
until I tweak the maximum SeaMonkey version in their install.rdf files.
 

It depends on whether the extension provides a channel for secure 
updates that allows their compatibility information to be updated. AMO 
does this for all of the addons that it hosts, of course.


--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

On 6/20/2011 5:27 AM, Neil wrote:

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:


Also any fresh download from AMO will correct it.


My understanding was that the download doesn't change but when XPI
doesn't claim compatibility then the Addon Manager will attempt to do an
update check from AMO.



Which was my intent as correct it but I didn't really clarify correctly.

--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Jens Hatlak]

David E. Ross wrote:

When installing software (new or updates), I normally download the
installer file (the XPI file for extensions) and disable my Internet
connection.


That's your choice/problem then. For me, whether an extension is to be 
called compatible or not depends on AMO in the first place, if it is 
hosted there. Only if it is not and there is no compatible version 
anywhere else we should call an add-on incompatible. There is just no 
point in confusing average users with such special cases. I expect 
people who follow such paths (and I do, too!) to find out about such 
issues by themselves eventually.



Thus, it appears that several extensions are incompatible with SeaMonkey
2.1 when, with an Internet connection, they are not.


Technically, yes. But they are not officially incompatible, and that's 
what counts as far as the the page I created is concerned.


Greetings,

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Robert Kaiser]

David E. Ross schrieb:

When installing software (new or updates), I normally download the
installer file (the XPI file for extensions) and disable my Internet
connection.


If you want doing things the hard way, you can have it. But don't blame 
us if things are hard. ;-)



However, this does
not help with those extensions that are not at addons.mozilla.org


Right, those need to care about it differently - either they provide 
update URLs that tell those things the same way, or they need to ship a 
new version that marks itself compatible. They can have the same service 
as addons.mozilla.org add-ons but they need to provide all the 
infrastructure for it themselves. That's why hosting on AMO is usually 
the better way. I tend to not really trust add-ons any more that are not 
available there.


Robert Kaiser


--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never 
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible 
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the 
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Steve Wendt]

On 06/20/11 10:14 am, Jens Hatlak wrote:


https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat


Its purpose is to:
* tell the average user which add-ons are compatible and where to get
them from if they cannot find them on AMO
* tell experienced users which add-ons actually work despite claiming
compatibility
* tell contributors what the state of specific add-ons is so that they
can better coordinate their efforts (contact the author, provide
modified version etc.)


Fair enough; I guess that leaves me only wondering why there is a need 
for the AMO section, unless it is just a place to see that something 
hasn't been forgotten from the list.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Jens Hatlak]

Philip Chee wrote:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/StatusMeetings/2011-06-14#Follow-ups

InvisibleSmiley has started maintaining a list. He'll create a wiki
page and post a newsgroup message regarding this.

Can't find the wiki page.


Umm, yeah, because I didn't have the time and feared the overhead of 
transforming it into a Wiki page. Anyway, to get this off my list, I sat 
down today and finished it. See yourself:


https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat

As you can see, it's not pretty and has low usability. But that's 
because this should not be a click-through page (that's what AMO is 
for!) and I think it's vital that editing won't become a pain. On the 
upside, I think it's quite informative and shows that the situation is 
not as bad as some people tend to suggest.


HTH

Jens

P.S.: Before you ask: Yes, I built all that myself. InfoLister currently 
states 65 active, 23 inactive add-ons. :-)


--
Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:20:40 +0200, /Jens Hatlak/:


https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat


Preserve Download Modification Timestamp 
https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification is 
compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.


--
Stanimir
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Jens Hatlak]

Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:20:40 +0200, /Jens Hatlak/:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat


Preserve Download Modification Timestamp
https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification is
compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.


Thanks, added. But, you know, it's a Wiki, so anyone can add an entry 
(esp. for such simple things as is already listed as compatible on 
AMO). Like... you. :-)


Greetings,

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:59:04 +0200, /Jens Hatlak/:

Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:20:40 +0200, /Jens Hatlak/:


https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat


Preserve Download Modification Timestamp
https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification is
compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.


Thanks, added. But, you know, it's a Wiki, so anyone can add an
entry (esp. for such simple things as is already listed as
compatible on AMO). Like... you. :-)


Alright, had to create Wiki account, first.  Sorry for being such lazy.

--
Stanimir
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Steve Wendt]

On 06/19/11 01:20 pm, Jens Hatlak wrote:


https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat

As you can see, it's not pretty and has low usability.
(that's what AMO is for!)


Right - so what's this wiki page for, exactly?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[David E. Ross]

On 6/19/11 2:53 PM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
 Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:20:40 +0200, /Jens Hatlak/:
 
 https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/2.1/AddonCompat
 
 Preserve Download Modification Timestamp 
 https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification is 
 compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.
 

That extension is compatible only if you tweak the maxVersion in file
install.rdf.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

On occasion, I might filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
because of spam from that source.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Steve Wendt]

On 06/19/11 04:50 pm, David E. Ross wrote:


Preserve Download Modification Timestamp
https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification  is
compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.


That extension is compatible only if you tweak the maxVersion in file
install.rdf.


???  Works with: SeaMonkey 2.0 - 2.4a1
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[David E. Ross]

On 6/19/11 6:04 PM, Steve Wendt wrote:
 On 06/19/11 04:50 pm, David E. Ross wrote:
 
 Preserve Download Modification Timestamp
 https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification  is
 compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.

 That extension is compatible only if you tweak the maxVersion in file
 install.rdf.
 
 ???  Works with: SeaMonkey 2.0 - 2.4a1

That's what the Web page says.  However, the install.rdf file has
em:maxVersion2.1b3/em:maxVersion
for SeaMonkey.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

On occasion, I might filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
because of spam from that source.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[Justin Wood (Callek)]

On 6/19/2011 10:13 PM, David E. Ross wrote:

On 6/19/11 6:04 PM, Steve Wendt wrote:

On 06/19/11 04:50 pm, David E. Ross wrote:


Preserve Download Modification Timestamp
https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification   is
compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.


That extension is compatible only if you tweak the maxVersion in file
install.rdf.


???  Works with: SeaMonkey 2.0 - 2.4a1


That's what the Web page says.  However, the install.rdf file has
em:maxVersion2.1b3/em:maxVersion
for SeaMonkey.



Which is because if you already had installed it it doesn't modify the 
local HD file, but any check for updates on AMO will mark it compat for 
SeaMonkey.


Also any fresh download from AMO will correct it.

AMO allows developers to mark an addon as compat on their dev interface 
and AMO does that magic itself, keeping users from having to download a 
whole file on each compat tweak rather than actual code change.


--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Wiki Page listing Extension Compatibility

[David E. Ross]

On 6/19/11 7:53 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:
 On 6/19/2011 10:13 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 6/19/11 6:04 PM, Steve Wendt wrote:
 On 06/19/11 04:50 pm, David E. Ross wrote:

 Preserve Download Modification Timestamp
 https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/preserve-download-modification   is
 compatible with SeaMonkey 2.1.

 That extension is compatible only if you tweak the maxVersion in file
 install.rdf.

 ???  Works with: SeaMonkey 2.0 - 2.4a1

 That's what the Web page says.  However, the install.rdf file has
  em:maxVersion2.1b3/em:maxVersion
 for SeaMonkey.

 
 Which is because if you already had installed it it doesn't modify the 
 local HD file, but any check for updates on AMO will mark it compat for 
 SeaMonkey.
 
 Also any fresh download from AMO will correct it.
 
 AMO allows developers to mark an addon as compat on their dev interface 
 and AMO does that magic itself, keeping users from having to download a 
 whole file on each compat tweak rather than actual code change.
 

I did a fresh download just before posting my reply.  I expanded the XPI
file (which is actually a zip file) with WinZip and viewed the
install.rdf file with WordPad.

Are you saying that somewhere there is something that tells the Add-ons
Manager to ignore maxVersion in install.rdf?

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

On occasion, I might filter and ignore all newsgroup messages
posted through GoogleGroups via Google's G2/1.0 user agent
because of spam from that source.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: compatibility with firefox 3.5?

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 22/1/2010 04:08, Klaus Weber told the world:
 recently I realized that I could not reach google-related websites incl. 
 youtube any more, neither by seamonkey, firefox nor IE 8. As a 
 work-around I found that I have to start firefox 3.5 first and then 
 seamonkey. Then everything works well.

Since it affects IE 8 too, I very much doubt that this is a
Mozilla/Firefox/Seamonkey problem. It's more likely to be a networking
problem, perhaps a DNS problem.

Try changing your DNS server. http://www.opendns.com has detailed
instructions.

We shouldn't ignore the possibility of you having some malicious
software installed on your computer that's making things look wonky. Run
a good antivirus scan. Then download a good antispyware program (I had
good experiences with Malwarebytes Antimalware, but Ad-Aware and Spybot
Serch  Destroy are other good options) and do a scan with it too.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... BOFH excuse #309:
firewall needs cooling
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.0.2 *
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

compatibility with firefox 3.5?

[Klaus Weber]

recently I realized that I could not reach google-related websites incl. 
youtube any more, neither by seamonkey, firefox nor IE 8. As a 
work-around I found that I have to start firefox 3.5 first and then 
seamonkey. Then everything works well.



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[Terry R.]

On 11/23/2009 6:53 PM On a whim, NO pounded out on the keyboard


Samuel S wrote:

Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.

Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to
find if something else out there is just as good.

TIA

Bo1953



Hello All - another quick thought, what about something with a firewall?
I think that would somewhat important too. I do not see any of that with
the free programs, unless I have missed it.

Thanks for all input.

Trying Avast next..

Bo1953


The Windows Firewall is more than sufficient, especially if a hardware 
firewall is used (which EVERYONE should have).  Except for those that 
will comment otherwise.


But if you feel the need, Comodo offers a nice free one...


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[n...@home]

I've had good results (as far as I know) with F-Secure, but it is not cheap.

Samuel S wrote:

Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.

Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to
find if something else out there is just as good.

TIA

Bo1953

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[Samuel S]

Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well 
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards 
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.


Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is 
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to 
find if something else out there is just as good.


TIA

Bo1953
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[Terry R.]

On 11/23/2009 7:04 AM On a whim, Samuel S pounded out on the keyboard


Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.

Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to
find if something else out there is just as good.

TIA

Bo1953


Hi Samuel,

Avira's Antivir is a good one also.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[David E. Ross]

On 11/23/2009 7:04 AM, Samuel S wrote:
 Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well 
 with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards 
 IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.
 
 Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is 
 on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to 
 find if something else out there is just as good.
 
 TIA
 
 Bo1953

As I stated in another thread, I'm using AVG 8.5 Free Edition.

Its Link Scanner claims to be effective with Firefox, which means it
might also be effective with SeaMonkey.

I'm not using SeaMonkey or Thunderbird for E-mail.  I'm using
12-year-old Eudora Lite 3.0.6.  AVG 8.5 has successfully found virus
attachments in my E-mail.

-- 
David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

Go to Mozdev at http://www.mozdev.org/ for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[Arne]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 11/23/2009 7:04 AM, Samuel S wrote:
Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well 
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards 
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.


Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is 
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to 
find if something else out there is just as good.


TIA

Bo1953


As I stated in another thread, I'm using AVG 8.5 Free Edition.


You should update to AVG 9.0 now! ;)


Its Link Scanner claims to be effective with Firefox, which means it
might also be effective with SeaMonkey.


The Link Scanner does not work with SM, and I have posted a request 
about that in AVG Forum pointing out that both Firefox and SM are 
Gecko browsers!



I'm not using SeaMonkey or Thunderbird for E-mail.  I'm using
12-year-old Eudora Lite 3.0.6.  AVG 8.5 has successfully found virus
attachments in my E-mail.


AVG works very well with SM, apart from the Link Scanner but that's 
not much to worry about. All the OP needs to think of when installing 
AVG is to choose the Personal E-mail Scanner as the plugin for 
scanning e-mails.


--
/Arne


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[chicagofan]

Samuel S wrote:

Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.

Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to
find if something else out there is just as good.

TIA

Bo1953



I've been using Avast Anti-Virus [Free] for several years, and it has 
always worked well with all versions of SM I have used.


If you're interested in trying it:  http://www.avast.com/

bj


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[Leonidas Jones]

Samuel S wrote:

Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.

Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to
find if something else out there is just as good.

TIA

Bo1953


I'm not a regular Windows user,  but I do use ClamWin on my Windows 
machines.


Lee
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Anti-Virus Suites Compatibility

[NO]

Samuel S wrote:

Hello all, I Am trying to figure out which anti-virus suites work well
with SM. I Am currently using AVG, which settings are all geared towards
IE and I cannot figure out how to change that.

Then it came to mind to find out here, who uses what and a consensus is
on the better suite. I was using Kaspersky, which was fine, I wanted to
find if something else out there is just as good.

TIA

Bo1953



Hello All - another quick thought, what about something with a firewall? 
I think that would somewhat important too. I do not see any of that with 
the free programs, unless I have missed it.


Thanks for all input.

Trying Avast next..

Bo1953
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey