Some basic patches for 2.0.x

Started by Antechinus, February 27, 2013, 06:59:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Chainy

Quote from: Antechinus on November 10, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
Should be safe, although I haven't actually tried it. All it's doing is allowing more browsers to be detected. In theory you should be able to add as many to the array as you like.

Thanks, Antechinus. So, as I understand it, this patch will probably do the job (fix the WYSIWYG problem in IE 11) - it just needs a bit of testing first of all.

Chainy

Quote from: digger on November 10, 2013, 03:54:02 PM
Quote from: Chainy on November 09, 2013, 08:47:24 PM
I've noticed that WYSIWYG (rich text editing) doesn't currently work with Internet Explorer 11 in Windows 8 (with SMF 2.0.6). A pop-up message indicates that it's not possible. Apparently this is due to a problem with browser detection.
IE11 doesn't contain MSIE in user agent string and not detected as known IE browser.

This is kind of a major bug, isn't it? Internet Explorer is an important browser to support.

Arantor

Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply never bothered. Y'all clearly would be less unhappy that way.

Antes

Quote from: Arantor on November 10, 2013, 04:14:54 PM
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0

You mean the whole 1.5% of users that use it?

IE11 released for Windows 7 that means IE10 sooner become IE11. Probably IE11 become 20% (according to data graph you linked).

Akyhne

Quote from: Antes on November 10, 2013, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: Arantor on November 10, 2013, 04:14:54 PM
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0

You mean the whole 1.5% of users that use it?

IE11 released for Windows 7 that means IE10 sooner become IE11. Probably IE11 become 20% (according to data graph you linked).
Indeed. So maybe not a major bug now, but in a few months.

Arantor

Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply never bothered. Y'all clearly would be less unhappy that way.

Akyhne

People upgrade their browser and operating system when asked to. And they don't seek that kind of information.

Arantor

Going from Windows 7 to Windows 8 is not free. Gotta have a reason to have such an upheaval.
Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply never bothered. Y'all clearly would be less unhappy that way.

Akyhne

I was more thinking about patches.

Antechinus

So I'll just write IE11 for W7 off in the same category I've always filed IE in: a POS crippled browser that's always trying to play catch up with the decent ones. Nothing to see here. Yawn.

The only reason IE is on my box is because it came with the OS. If not for that, I'd never bother installing it.

Antechinus

Ok, I've had another look at the packages in the OP, and updated the browser detection package to handle IE11's actual user agent, not the one we thought it would have at the time (when IE11 hadn't actually been released).

Also threw in detection for Pale Moon. Probably wont ever be really necessary, but since I'm running Pale Moon now (and loving it) I thought it should go in, just in case.

Will submit the revamped packages to the Mod Site as usual. They're potentially very useful, and don't seem to be getting much attention tucked away in here.

stmaxx

Thank you and Glad you are working with these things... great news!

regards
stMaxx

Chainy

Thank you, Antechinus. I'm sure many people will find this very useful. I wonder how 2.1 will handle this?

Arantor

Aside from the obvious fact that it could even be tested since it's on Github (and testing is something is apparently such a huge hurdle that any testing would be welcomed), 2.1 detects IE11 just fine, and doesn't detect Pale Moon specifically because it generally projects itself as Firefox and should generally have the same rendering characteristics and behaviours (which is all the browser detection is really for anyway) and any test for is_ff should generally work and apply to Pale Moon or similar.

As far as post 2.1 release, we'll be in exactly the same situation as 2.0 is currently in unless the policy of the team is altered to have 2.1.x patches be for bug fixes, something I was always keen on but this was not especially welcomed IIRC.
Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply never bothered. Y'all clearly would be less unhappy that way.

Chainy

Arantor, I think there are some sites which make it possible to test with Internet Explorer (for people like me that don't have access to Windows). Do you know of a particular site that you'd recommend for this?

Arantor

BrowserShots.org is the go-to but that's only any good for rendering of guest-visible content. Some of the more intricate behaviours under the hood can't be tested that way.

For example, attachment serving physically behaves differently between the major browsers because of the way SMF sends the Content-Disposition header (and it's still just as messy these days if you have mixed encoding risks)
Perhaps it would have been better if I'd simply never bothered. Y'all clearly would be less unhappy that way.

Advertisement: