NFN Smith wrote:
AK wrote:
I am finding more and more sites not accepting Seamonkey.
The latest is Rotten Tomatoes.
I do not understand as Seamonkey is almost identical to Firefox?
Andy
The differences are less than they want you to believe.
I run NoScript, and with the RottenTomatoes scripting host blocked, I
have no problems with getting to their content, at least stuff that
isn't delivered by script. However, if I unblock that one, I'm not
finding any spoofing options, even the most current version of Google
Chrome that this site will accept.
It seems that their browser sniffing script is exceptionally aggressive.
Most of the time, sites that complain about Seamonkey may say that the
issue is compatibility, but I have yet to see a site that relies on
something that is more current than I have in Seamonkey. There's a
variety of reasons that sites may not want Seamonkey, but frequently it
comes down to them wanting to simplify, and by rejecting old or odd (to
them) browsers, they change things from being Their Problem to being
Your Problem.
On the other hand, one of the Seamonkey devs has noted that there are
things that Google is doing with YouTube that may make things difficult
for any browser that's not Chromium-derived. I haven't seen that myself,
although at Google's main search page, there's a display quirk that goes
away if I show a stock Firefox User Agent string. Thus, for google.com,
I have an about:config entry that shows Google that I'm a Firefox user.
My own use of NoScript gets me around a lot of script-based browser
sniffing issues, although there are trade-offs, and that might not work
for you. And I also use PrefBar, which allows me to do quick on-the-fly
spoofing, when I need to.
But it is happening that there's at least a few sites out there that may
start having problems with Seamonkey. For that, you don't have to
abandon Seamonkey, but it may be useful to have an alternate browser for
getting to sites that may have issues (whether real, or just annoying
sites that don't want to deal with it) with Seamonkey.
Smith
The problem is usually - as in this case - that a site has javascript
identifying the various browsers and catering for them individually.
Not a particularly good idea in the first place and it tends to fail
when confronted with a browser it does not recognise.
I saw a posting in this forum (I think) around a year ago where someone
posted a link to Google's suggestions for resolving the problem - the
javascript should test for browser *capabilities* instead of
browser/level combinations, examples were provided on the Google-page.
Unfortunately Google themselves don't follow that advice, some of their
pages are/were broken for Seamonkey.
Edward's suggestion should help, although it requires 2.53.3 or higher.
--
spammo ergo sum, viruses courtesy of https://www.nsa.gov/malware/
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
