On 2/12/2017 at 2:34 PM, Lee's prodigious digits fired off with great
aplomb:
On 2/12/17, Jonathan N. Little <[email protected]> wrote:
flyguy wrote:
[email protected] wrote on 2/10/2017 2:47 PM:
<snip>
If you don't have Lightning installed, perhaps it's some other extension
adding something to the user-agent string and tripping up their dodgy
sniffing.
Bingo! I am using Lightning, and your fix worked for the NYT. I never
would have found that solution.
Over a decade ago UA browser sniffing was exposed as bad web design
because it was unreliable and very fragile. Why are we back to
relitigating this? It has been proven a to be a "Bad Idea" (TM)
Because doing a half-assed job that gets it right 80% of the time is
sooo much easier than figuring out the right way to do it.
Regards,
Lee
And because the ONLY reason to check what browser a viewer is using is
because the author of the Web page doesn't know how to write compliant HTML.
Browser sniffing = incompetence.
The only acceptable check is, perhaps, for transactional reasons, to see
if a viewer has javascript disabled. And then to (gently) inform the
user of the consequences.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
A Messy Kitchen Is A Happy Kitchen And This Kitchen Is Delirious
(Oh, crap. I jkust remembered I gotta go clean up the kitchen!)
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
