WaltS48 wrote:
On 8/27/20 6:35 AM, Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:
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 this case it seems to be where they're explicitly rejecting anything
that's not on their internal whitelist.
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.
Depending on the site, it could be *Feature* detection or browser sniffing.
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/Tools_and_testing/Cross_browser_testing/Feature_detection>
From the testing I did, it looks like their scripting is explicitly
querying browser capabilities, rather than simply looking at what's
presented in the User Agent string.
Technically, that's the correct thing to be doing, even if Google isn't
following their own advice, at least not strictly.
In the case of a movie site like Rotten Tomatoes, I'm assuming that
there's a lot of direct connection to content and delivery mechanisms
related to YouTube, so it makes sense that they're going to demand use
of a browser that supports YouTube's current capacities, and that they
enforce that demand based on data that they extract through querying the
contents of the browser.
For what it's worth, I did check that site with other browsers,
including Firefox 80, legacy Edge, PaleMoon, Safari and Opera. I had no
problems with any of those browsers except Edge. I don't yet have the
new Chrome version of Edge and PaleMoon, but if Safari and Opera are OK,
then it seems to be that any current Chromium browser is OK, rather than
Google Chrome, as the site demands. And for Firefox 80, it does look
like they've implemented something that uses the current Google
offerings. I don't have a copy of Firefox 68.x ESR handy, so I don't
know if that will handle this situation, but with the 68 branch nearly
EOL, it probably doesn't much matter.
Smith
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
