Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
Using an User Agent switcher, you can see how some sites serve up different content based on the user agent. For a demonstration of making content accessible to different users, in this case search engines such as Google, camouflage yourself with the Googlebot UA and visit some Microsoft web pages. Regards, Ben Nick Lo wrote: ability to set the User Agent HTTP header to say it's another browser. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] reply to Safari question
Nick Lo wrote: > Here's how to enable it: > > http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030110063041629 > > However, before you get too excited "it can pretend to be a bunch of > different browsers" merely refers to it's ability to set the User > Agent HTTP header to say it's another browser. Useful e.g. when online > banking with a bank that doesn't recognise Safari as a viable browser > even if it otherwise functions fine. Now you see Safari ...switch... > now you see Windows MSIE 6.0, etc., type thing. I'd just like to weigh in here & say that I think doing this is *incredibly* counter-productive if you don't also complain to the site in question, if the bank/whatever turns to their stats at the end of the year/month/etc., sees that no-one is using opera/safari/whathaveyou, then they are a lot less likely to take their silly browser detection crap away. If, however, they have a pile of emails from customers telling them that they can't get into their site, then they're a lot more likely to make the change. That said, it's also handy to get into NYT articles without registering (hint, GoogleBot doesn't need to register... :) -- Lindsay Evans. Developer, Red Square Productions. [p] 8596.4000 [f] 8596.4001 [w] www.redsquare.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
Here's how to enable it: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20030110063041629 However, before you get too excited "it can pretend to be a bunch of different browsers" merely refers to it's ability to set the User Agent HTTP header to say it's another browser. Useful e.g. when online banking with a bank that doesn't recognise Safari as a viable browser even if it otherwise functions fine. Now you see Safari ...switch... now you see Windows MSIE 6.0, etc., type thing. Nick What tha - how does this work? On 04/02/2004, at 6:17 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote: The debug menu is extremely useful: it can pretend to be a bunch of different browsers, it has a basic load test engine built in, it can show the DOM tree... * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
What tha - how does this work? On 04/02/2004, at 6:17 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote: The debug menu is extremely useful: it can pretend to be a bunch of different browsers, it has a basic load test engine built in, it can show the DOM tree... Peter Gifford Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
On Mar 3, 2004, at 10:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but why is everyone so enthused about safari?, Because it's a very good, very fast browser. And it's very well integrated with OS X. The debug menu is extremely useful: it can pretend to be a bunch of different browsers, it has a basic load test engine built in, it can show the DOM tree... After my frustrations I use Mozilla firebird. That's good too. I use it as my second browser for those few reticent sites that just don't know a standard when it bites them on the nose (e.g., Microsoft Exchange WebMail). I just don't like the UI as much. This means that when you develop for a company, you can do their profile on the browser. ... just imagine how stoked they would be with their corporate Branding running all browsers on their network. Maybe times have changed but that never seemed to appeal to any company I've ever dealt with... :) Regards, Sean * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
Sorry, but why is everyone so enthused about safari?, After my frustrations I use Mozilla firebird. http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/ okay, it is still in beta testing, but the beauty is that you can become part of the development (over my head), but designers can stylize it via the .jar files which contain all the .css, xml & images you need. This means that when you develop for a company, you can do their profile on the browser. I am currently developing Themes on Mobile phones for companies (in my spare time), just imagine how stoked they would be with their corporate Branding running all browsers on their network. Awesome.. Well thats my 2 cents worth, (and 2 be taken with a pinch of salt cos i am a designer & not that good a programmer yet =) 72dpi - AKA - Ryan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
Justin, Perhaps Safari needs a developer edition Nice idea. What I guess happens at present is that the "web kit" that drives Safari, Mail (and iTunes?) is the important part of the update, and this is something that is available system-wide. So there would have to be a way of running different web kits concurrently. (Might even be able to do it from the same UI, as you suggest.) -Hugh Todd * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
On Feb 3, 2004, at 8:49 PM, Justin French wrote: The problem is, Safari 1.0 doesn't actually expire (AFAIK). Correct. 1.0 is the last version produced for OS X 10.2.x (Jaguar). 1.2 is the current version for OS X 10.3.x (Panther). Whilst it's more than likely that a vast majority of web users will upgrade to 10.3 this year, there will still be a massive number on 10.2.x, and developers are either forced to: I don't know that "a vast majority of web users will upgrade to 10.3", this year or otherwise. My laptop is provided by work and work upgraded me to 10.3 (thank you!) and now Software Update keeps my Safari install up to the latest version (optional - I could have stayed with 1.1). My wife's machine is paid for out of our own pocket and she's on 10.2, albeit the latest 10.2.x, therefore she uses Safari 1.0 (and loves it). However, I don't think she'd get the extra value out of Panther to make it worthwhile upgrading her to 10.3. a) stay with 10.2.x thinking that they're safer testing on the older (more bugs) version b) upgrade to 10.3.x, take the update of Safari, and ignore Safari 1.0 users You can't even rely on 10.3.x folks being on 1.2 - yes, it's likely but it isn't a given. Safari 1.2 should be available to 10.2 users via the software update. Not possible, it relies on stuff in Panther as far as I can tell. Safari 1.0 & 1.1 should be available as multiple installs for any Mac OS X user. Since the core rendering engine etc is shared core code, I suspect it would be tricky to support multiple versions of Safari. Which is the same situation really as IE on Win. All browsers should have an expiry date, auto-update, and a nag-screen for any browser that has expired. That would be fabulous, yes. What would be even better is if Safari (and Mozilla, etc) had multiple rendering engines that could be selected from a list (Safari 1, 1.1, 1.2) so that developers could easily switch between all three form within one app. Yes, that would also be fabulous. Mozilla however does allow multiple version installs (I had four different versions installed at one point) although you can only run one at a time. Given the relative market shares of the various browsers, the real killer is still that you cannot have multiple versions of IE installed at any one time. Mozilla is the second most widely deployed and it *does* allow multiple versions. Safari is some way behind (although it may well be fast approaching the majority browser on Mac?). So in the grand scale of things, IE is still a developer's bugaboo... Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
thanks for clarifying that justin. I thought about my comment & realized that it is with os update that it happens, so thanks for correcting me... * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, at 03:03 PM, Universal Head wrote: Now THAT's a smart idea - old browsers that expire. If only IE and NN did that! Peter A browser that actually expires would be great. If NN4, IE4, Opera 4, etc all *expired* in 2002, the cost of web development would be a lot cheaper already. If IE5.x and NN6 (and early Mozilla's) expired sometime this year, CSS2 and other standards could really take off. The problem is, Safari 1.0 doesn't actually expire (AFAIK). It's tied into OSX's 10.3.x upgrade. Whilst it's more than likely that a vast majority of web users will upgrade to 10.3 this year, there will still be a massive number on 10.2.x, and developers are either forced to: a) stay with 10.2.x thinking that they're safer testing on the older (more bugs) version b) upgrade to 10.3.x, take the update of Safari, and ignore Safari 1.0 users Safari 1.2 should be available to 10.2 users via the software update. Safari 1.0 & 1.1 should be available as multiple installs for any Mac OS X user. All browsers should have an expiry date, auto-update, and a nag-screen for any browser that has expired. I guess in one way it's nice that Apple is enforcing upgrades... the result is probably that a LOT less people will have 1.0 in a few years time, but it's at the expense of developers who need multiple versions of everything loaded at all times. Perhaps Safari needs a developer edition (even a commercial product requiring registration and/or $'s) which allows multiple versions to run, without nags, auto-updates, etc. What would be even better is if Safari (and Mozilla, etc) had multiple rendering engines that could be selected from a list (Safari 1, 1.1, 1.2) so that developers could easily switch between all three form within one app. Justin French * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
Re: [WSG] reply to Safari question
Now THAT's a smart idea - old browsers that expire. If only IE and NN did that! Peter Safari V 1.2 Actually takes over the old safari which expires. they are still having a few javascripting issues where some scripts still wont work. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
