On 4/21/2016 2:06 PM, Ray_Net wrote: > David E. Ross wrote on 21/04/2016 16:34: >> On 4/20/2016 10:02 AM, Ed Mullen wrote: >>> On 4/20/2016 4:01 AM, Daniel's fingers rattled off: >>>> On 20/04/2016 1:23 AM, Ed Mullen wrote: >>>>> On 4/19/2016 4:27 AM, Daniel's fingers rattled off: >>>>>> On 19/04/2016 1:45 AM, Ed Mullen wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/18/2016 11:40 AM, Daniel's fingers rattled off: >>>>>>>> On 19/04/2016 1:06 AM, Ed Mullen wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2016 7:37 AM, Daniel's fingers rattled off: >>>>>>>>>> Normally, when I file a Bookmark, I want to put it in a particular >>>>>>>>>> Group/Sub-Folder, but, with this Windows version of SM 2.40, I'm >>>>>>>>>> having >>>>>>>>>> troubles getting to particular Sub-Folders, e.g. somebody recently >>>>>>>>>> posted a link to http://info.cern.ch/ with a claim that it was the >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> *ever* website, so I thought I'd save the link in my "General" >>>>>>>>>> Sub-Folder of my Bookmarks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Previously, a sub-screen would open showing my Bookmarks file >>>>>>>>>> structure >>>>>>>>>> and I would just select the Sub-Folder that I wanted the new >>>>>>>>>> Bookmark >>>>>>>>>> saved to, then click "O.K." and ... job done. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, I think, when I click on Bookmarks->File Bookmark, I am taken >>>>>>>>>> to a >>>>>>>>>> "New Bookmark" screen, which allows me to add bits and pieces about >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> new bookmark, but doesn't allow me to select the particular >>>>>>>>>> sub-folder >>>>>>>>>> that I want the Bookmark saved to .... unless it happens to be >>>>>>>>>> one of >>>>>>>>>> the half dozen or so listed on the "Folder:" drop-down of the >>>>>>>>>> sub-screen. Where this list comes from, I don't know ... unless it >>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>> listing of the sub-folders to which I may have previously filed >>>>>>>>>> bookmarks directly to. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Have I started doing something wrong?? How do I get back to the old >>>>>>>>>> situation where I could file a bookmark to any of the forty or more >>>>>>>>>> sub-folders in my Bookmarks Folder?? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (Lately, any bookmarks I save are just being added to the bottom of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Bookmarks drop-down! :-( ) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the New Bookmark dialog it has a line Folder: with a button >>>>>>>>> saying >>>>>>>>> Bookmarks Menu. Click the down arrow to the right. Click on >>>>>>>>> "Choose." >>>>>>>>> Choose your folder and click "Save." >>>>>>>> Thanks for that, Ed, but as I typed above, when I click "Choose", I >>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>> get offered those sub-folders that I have saved to recently (the half >>>>>>>> dozen or so listed).... not the full screen length list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Odd. WFM. SM 2.40 release channel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm!! Looking at our UserAgents >>>>>> >>>>>> You are Win 10 and include FF/43.0 and your addressbook works >>>>>> Mine Win7 no mention of FF and my addressbook fails >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't know if that might help any devs lurking. >>>>>> >>>>> Edit - Preferences - Advanced - HTTP Networking - check Advertise >>>>> Firefox compatibility. >>>>> >>>> Been there, done that ... and undone it .... several times, Ed! >>>> >>> Why undo it? You'll have less problems online if you advertise FF >>> compatibility. >>> >>> >> My default is to disable "Advertise Firefox compatibility". If I have a >> problem from that, my first recourse is to use PrefBar to set my user >> agent string to >> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 >> SeaMonkey/2.40, NOT Firefox/45.0 >> If that does not work, I use PrefBar to revert to my real UA string and >> then have PrefBar check the "Advertise Firefox compatibility" checkbox. >> And if that does not work, I have PrefBar uncheck that checkbox and set >> my user agent string to >> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 >> Firefox/45.0 >> >> "Advertise Firefox compatibility" is not always effective. I have found >> Web sites that cannot handle the presence of "SeaMonkey" in the >> resulting UA string >> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 >> Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40 >> I do not know whether the servers are parsing the entire UA string or >> merely require "Firefox" to be at the end. I just know that the mere >> presence of "SeaMonkey" in the string causes problems at some Web sites. >> >> By the way, when I find an organization's site that is doing incorrect >> sniffing, I sometimes send a letter (US Postal System, not E-mail) to >> the CEO explaining why they have a broken Web server. >> > Do you think that the server is involved ? > My opinion is that the webmaster have badly analyzed the sniffing result. > Anyway all the problem came from the fact that most people did not know > that seamonkey is a browser otherwise > the UA string: "SeaMonkey/2.40" would be perfect. >
The server is the software that receives your browser's request for a Web page and sends the result. Often, there is confusion when "server" is used to describe the hardware platform -- the "host" -- on which the actual server operates. The server may have a software component that sniffs the header fields sent by the browser, which includes the UA string. Based on how the server's sniffing routines were developed and configured, different files might be sent. This often happens when a Web developer decides to take advantage of the peculiarities -- idiosyncrasies -- of a particular browser that does not exist in other browsers. Sometimes, those peculiarities are actually errors in how the browser operates; when those errors are fixed, that particular browser might no longer render pages from that server as initially intended. It is obvious (at least to me) that much grief could be avoided if all Web pages complied with the W3C (World-Wide Web Consortium) specifications. Most sniffing would no longer be appropriate. For some Web sites (e.g., for financial transactions), however, sniffing would still be done because those sites have to be validated for specific browsers. Are you sorry you asked? -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/>. Sarah Palin claims Bill Nye (the "Science Guy") is no more a scientist than she is. Nye has a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering. Palin has degree in communications with an emphasis on journalism. Somehow, engineering seems to be more scientific than journalism. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
