Having a Problem with Google Search but only with SeaMonkey

I need help getting SeaMonkey to work correctly. Doing a Google search 
such as this link:

https://www.google.com/#q=restaurants+orlando+near+orlando

When I get the search results it displays a small map and several search 
results locations clicking on any of the results or the small map take 
me to another page that is nothing but a blank page and nothing else.

When using IE and going to the same link it get a large map with all the 
locations displayed on the map. Please help me get SeaMonkey to work 
correctly.

Thank you in advance!
0
Danny
4/18/2017 3:02:27 AM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 12545 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

28 Replies
110 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 51

Danny Kile wrote:
> I need help getting SeaMonkey to work correctly. Doing a Google search 
> such as this link:
> 
> https://www.google.com/#q=restaurants+orlando+near+orlando
> 
> When I get the search results it displays a small map and several search 
> results locations clicking on any of the results or the small map take 
> me to another page that is nothing but a blank page and nothing else.
> 
> When using IE and going to the same link it get a large map with all the 
> locations displayed on the map. Please help me get SeaMonkey to work 
> correctly.
> 
> Thank you in advance!

Same behavior here using 2.49. Viewing the "blank page" in IE works 
perfectly.  -JW
0
J
4/18/2017 4:56:25 AM
Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or another 
user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain Firefox one for 
google it works. Please complain to them.
FRG

J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
> Danny Kile wrote:
>> I need help getting SeaMonkey to work correctly. Doing a Google search such 
>> as this link:
>>
>> https://www.google.com/#q=restaurants+orlando+near+orlando
>>
>> When I get the search results it displays a small map and several search 
>> results locations clicking on any of the results or the small map take me to 
>> another page that is nothing but a blank page and nothing else.
>>
>> When using IE and going to the same link it get a large map with all the 
>> locations displayed on the map. Please help me get SeaMonkey to work correctly.
>>
>> Thank you in advance!
> 
> Same behavior here using 2.49. Viewing the "blank page" in IE works 
> perfectly.  -JW

0
Frank
4/18/2017 6:00:46 AM
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:

> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you use prefbar
> or another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them. FRG

Broken here with 2.46 as the OP described. Unchecking "Advertise Firefox 
compatibility" fixes it.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/18/2017 7:19:42 AM
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or 
> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain 
> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
> FRG

I get your point, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of the Mozilla 
organization to explain to Google and others that they have to look for 
the Gecko information in the user agent? If I'm not mistaken there are 
about a dozen browsers build around the same Gecko engine, including 
SeaMonkey of course.


>
> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>> Danny Kile wrote:
>>> I need help getting SeaMonkey to work correctly. Doing a Google 
>>> search such as this link:
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=restaurants+orlando+near+orlando
>>>
>>> When I get the search results it displays a small map and several 
>>> search results locations clicking on any of the results or the small 
>>> map take me to another page that is nothing but a blank page and 
>>> nothing else.
>>>
>>> When using IE and going to the same link it get a large map with all 
>>> the locations displayed on the map. Please help me get SeaMonkey to 
>>> work correctly.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance!
>>
>> Same behavior here using 2.49. Viewing the "blank page" in IE works 
>> perfectly.  -JW
>

0
Dirk
4/18/2017 7:44:41 AM
The Mozilla organization as a whole gives a rats a** about SeaMonkey. They are 
only interested in Firefox at this point in time. Thankfully a look of great 
individuals still work there and help out.

FRG

Dirk Munk wrote:
> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or 
>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain Firefox one 
>> for google it works. Please complain to them.
>> FRG
> 
> I get your point, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of the Mozilla 
> organization to explain to Google and others that they have to look for the 
> Gecko information in the user agent? If I'm not mistaken there are about a 
> dozen browsers build around the same Gecko engine, including SeaMonkey of course.
> 
> 
0
Frank
4/18/2017 8:00:15 AM
Frank-Rainer Grahl composed on 2017-04-18 10:00 (UTC+0200):

> The Mozilla organization as a whole gives a rats a** about SeaMonkey.
True.

> They are only interested in Firefox at this point in time.
False. Bugzilla, Rust, Cloud, MarketPlace, Page-Shot and other resource thieves 
also have interest. :-(

At the SeaMonkey 1.0 point in time, Firefox already was (virtually) its only 
interest.

> Thankfully a look of great
> individuals still work there and help out.

True. :-D
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
0
Felix
4/18/2017 8:27:28 AM
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or 
> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain Firefox 
> one for google it works. Please complain to them.
> FRG

That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
0
J
4/18/2017 12:53:02 PM
J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>> FRG
>
> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW

I override my UA with:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0

This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did you 
file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.

Thank you!
0
Danny
4/18/2017 3:37:33 PM
Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>> FRG
>>
>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>
> I override my UA with:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
>
> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did 
> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>
> Thank you
Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER 
ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !
0
Ray_Net
4/18/2017 4:12:14 PM
Ray_Net wrote:
> Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
>> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>>> FRG
>>>
>>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>>
>> I override my UA with:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
>>
>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did 
>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>>
>> Thank you
> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER 
> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !

Yes, I think you're right. As far as I'm aware, user agent sniffing is 
wrong. There should be other ways to establish the capabilities of a 
browser. If user agent sniffing is done, then in case of Mozilla 
browsers the sniffing should be done for the Gecko engine, not for 
Firefox or SeaMonkey or other Gecko based browsers.
0
Dirk
4/18/2017 6:13:16 PM
Ray_Net composed on 2017-04-18 18:12 (UTC+0200):

> Danny Kile wrote:

>> I override my UA with:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0

>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did 
>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.

> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER 
> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !

OK only for those who don't care that discovery of stupid sniffing is
effectively disabled by including Firefox in the UA string and thus is unlikely
to be reported to anyone who might do anything to correct it.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
0
Felix
4/19/2017 5:42:56 AM
Ray_Net wrote:
> Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
>> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>>> FRG
>>>
>>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>>
>> I override my UA with:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
>>
>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did 
>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>>
>> Thank you
> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER 
> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !
> 

I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
browser.

I reported it to google via their feedback some time ago. Maybe one day
they will fix it. When they are not too busy pretending electric
driverless cars are a good idea....

(OK that's a different company)



0
Richmond
4/19/2017 8:58:46 AM
Danny Kile wrote:
> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>> FRG
>>
>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
> 
> I override my UA with:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0

Do you override using the UA on Pref Bar or by modifying user.js or some other
procedure?

> 
> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did you file
> the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
> 
> Thank you!

0
Arnie
4/19/2017 1:25:07 PM
Arnie Goetchius wrote:
I override my UA with:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
>
> Do you override using the UA on Pref Bar or by modifying user.js or some other
> procedure?
>
>
I us an extension called PrefBar

http://prefbar.tuxfamily.org/

0
Danny
4/19/2017 2:20:47 PM
> I reported it to google via their feedback some time ago. Maybe one day
> they will fix it. When they are not too busy pretending electric
> driverless cars are a good idea....
Getting Google to fix things like this is nearly impossible in my 
experience. I discovered a case where the Microb browser on my Nokia N900 
(based on an old version of Gecko) will get sent back data from Google 
claiming to be "application/xhtml+xml" and where that data contains an 
unescaped & symbol (i.e. it should be & instead of just &). I also 
discovered that if I used "user agent switcher" on current SeaMonkey 
release version to feed Google the same user agent as MicroB, Google will 
send back the same bogus data.

Google knows about it but has not done anything to fix it since it got 
reported in early 2016 or so (I ended up solving it by adding a workaround 
to the version of Gecko in MicroB to treat the unescaped & symbol as though 
it was a properly escaped & symbol instead of returning a parsing error)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

0
Jonathan
4/19/2017 2:45:13 PM
Danny Kile wrote:
> Arnie Goetchius wrote:
> I override my UA with:
>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
>>
>> Do you override using the UA on Pref Bar or by modifying user.js or some other
>> procedure?
>>
>>
> I us an extension called PrefBar
> 
> http://prefbar.tuxfamily.org/
> 
Yes, I also use that. The only problem I have is that, upon restart of SM,
Prefbar runs "Real UA" at the startup of SM. "Real UA" has a value of RESET! so
it always "Resets" on SM startup. I am thinking that I will change the "Value"
for the Real UA to what you show above and then add a new Label called Reset
with a Value of RESET!
0
njoracle
4/19/2017 3:28:09 PM
Richmond wrote on 19-04-17 10:58:
> Ray_Net wrote:
>> Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
>>> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>>>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>>>> FRG
>>>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>>> I override my UA with:
>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0
>>>
>>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did
>>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER
>> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !
>>
> I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
> browser.
>
>
Who's care ? Nobody knows SeaMonkey - and they don't want to know ....

Tell me WHY SM must identify itself as SM ? .. when a lot of SM people 
change the UA string reflecting ONLY as Firfox.
If the default UA string will be "Firefox" only...
A. There is no need to fiddle changing the UA string.
B. All site sniffing wrongly ... will work correctly.

AND

Due to the fact that:
1. Webmaster checks only for IE,Google/Chrome, Opera and FireFox but 
NEVER for SeaMonkey
2. And due to the fact the coding for SeaMonkey Must be IDENTICAL for 
Firefox.
SM must present his browser as a Firefox browser.
0
Ray_Net
4/19/2017 4:26:40 PM
Ray_Net wrote:
>> I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
>> browser.
>>
>>
> Who's care ? Nobody knows SeaMonkey - and they don't want to know ....
> 
> Tell me WHY SM must identify itself as SM ? .. when a lot of SM people 
> change the UA string reflecting ONLY as Firfox.
> If the default UA string will be "Firefox" only...
> A. There is no need to fiddle changing the UA string.
> B. All site sniffing wrongly ... will work correctly.
> 
> AND
> 
> Due to the fact that:
> 1. Webmaster checks only for IE,Google/Chrome, Opera and FireFox but 
> NEVER for SeaMonkey
> 2. And due to the fact the coding for SeaMonkey Must be IDENTICAL for 
> Firefox.
> SM must present his browser as a Firefox browser.
> 

I am not saying you shouldn't change it if you want to. I have prefs bar
and I change it myself sometimes. I can't remember why.

I am just saying that the point of the User Agent String is to identify
the user agent. So the default setting should be Seamonkey, because
that's what it is. If the web authors can't be bothered to check it
properly it is their fault, not the fault of the browser.

0
Richmond
4/19/2017 6:14:49 PM
Richmond wrote on 19-04-17 20:14:
> Ray_Net wrote:
>>> I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
>>> browser.
>>>
>>>
>> Who's care ? Nobody knows SeaMonkey - and they don't want to know ....
>>
>> Tell me WHY SM must identify itself as SM ? .. when a lot of SM people
>> change the UA string reflecting ONLY as Firfox.
>> If the default UA string will be "Firefox" only...
>> A. There is no need to fiddle changing the UA string.
>> B. All site sniffing wrongly ... will work correctly.
>>
>> AND
>>
>> Due to the fact that:
>> 1. Webmaster checks only for IE,Google/Chrome, Opera and FireFox but
>> NEVER for SeaMonkey
>> 2. And due to the fact the coding for SeaMonkey Must be IDENTICAL for
>> Firefox.
>> SM must present his browser as a Firefox browser.
>>
> I am not saying you shouldn't change it if you want to. I have prefs bar
> and I change it myself sometimes. I can't remember why.
>
> I am just saying that the point of the User Agent String is to identify
> the user agent. So the default setting should be Seamonkey, because
> that's what it is. If the web authors can't be bothered to check it
> properly it is their fault, not the fault of the browser.
>
Yes this their fault - a great number of webmasters are doing the same 
fault.
It is faster and easier to change the default UA string to FireFox than 
convincing ALL webmasters to change their coding.
But most of the time, they don't want to change their coding and more 
.... they don't know what "Gecko" is, because they sniff for a Browser, 
"Gecko"  IS NOT a browser.
Additionally, if the default UA is FireFox, we don't need anymore extra 
plugins or fiddling.

0
Ray_Net
4/20/2017 8:31:52 AM
Ray_Net wrote:

> Yes this their fault - a great number of webmasters are doing the
> same fault. It is faster and easier to change the default UA string
> to FireFox than convincing ALL webmasters to change their coding. But
> most of the time, they don't want to change their coding and more ...
> they don't know what "Gecko" is, because they sniff for a Browser,
> "Gecko"  IS NOT a browser. Additionally, if the default UA is
> FireFox, we don't need anymore extra plugins or fiddling.

Depends how they do their sniffing. Some sites reject "Firefox/49.0 
SeaMonkey/2.46" while accepting "Firefox/49.0" -- presumably because the 
first contains something /besides/ "Firefox." But the whole idea of a 
coder tripling his effort by writing multiple custom-tailored versions 
of his code and sniffing for the user's browser seems so stupid to me....

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 8:45:25 AM
On 20/04/2017 2:26 AM, Ray_Net wrote:
> Richmond wrote on 19-04-17 10:58:
>> Ray_Net wrote:
>>> Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
>>>> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user prefbar or
>>>>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>>>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>>>>> FRG
>>>>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>>>> I override my UA with:
>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>> Firefox/45.0
>>>>
>>>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did
>>>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER
>>> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !
>>>
>> I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
>> browser.
>>
>>
> Who's care ? Nobody knows SeaMonkey - and they don't want to know ....
>
> Tell me WHY SM must identify itself as SM ? .. when a lot of SM people
> change the UA string reflecting ONLY as Firfox.
> If the default UA string will be "Firefox" only...
> A. There is no need to fiddle changing the UA string.
> B. All site sniffing wrongly ... will work correctly.
>
> AND
>
> Due to the fact that:
> 1. Webmaster checks only for IE,Google/Chrome, Opera and FireFox but
> NEVER for SeaMonkey
> 2. And due to the fact the coding for SeaMonkey Must be IDENTICAL for
> Firefox.
> SM must present his browser as a Firefox browser.

Hey, Ray, if you are in favour of SeaMonkey giving up the battle with 
self-identification, I'm guessing you also agree with the Basque peoples 
giving up their battle for self-identification!!

What about the French-speaking, mostly Walloon population, of the 
Kingdom of Belgium?? Should they just join the Dutch-speaking, mostly 
Flemish community, which constitutes about 59% of the population of 
Belgium?? Or should they fight, fight, fight to become part of the 
French Nation?? Or become a totally independent nation like the Basque 
peoples fought for so long for??

Same Same SeaMonkey!!

-- 
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
0
Daniel
4/20/2017 9:38:21 AM
On 20/04/2017 6:45 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Ray_Net wrote:
>
>> Yes this their fault - a great number of webmasters are doing the
>> same fault. It is faster and easier to change the default UA string
>> to FireFox than convincing ALL webmasters to change their coding. But
>> most of the time, they don't want to change their coding and more ...
>> they don't know what "Gecko" is, because they sniff for a Browser,
>> "Gecko"  IS NOT a browser. Additionally, if the default UA is
>> FireFox, we don't need anymore extra plugins or fiddling.
>
> Depends how they do their sniffing. Some sites reject "Firefox/49.0
> SeaMonkey/2.46" while accepting "Firefox/49.0" -- presumably because the
> first contains something /besides/ "Firefox." But the whole idea of a
> coder tripling his effort by writing multiple custom-tailored versions
> of his code and sniffing for the user's browser seems so stupid to me....
>
Yeap!! Long time ago, I came across the saying "When you do something, 
do it once, do it well, and move on!"

Sort of been my motto!

If web sites were correctly coded, or sniffed correctly, these problems 
would not be a bother.

-- 
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
0
Daniel
4/20/2017 9:44:28 AM
Daniel wrote:
> On 20/04/2017 6:45 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Yeap!! Long time ago, I came across the saying "When you do something,
> do it once, do it well, and move on!"
>
> Sort of been my motto!
>
> If web sites were correctly coded, or sniffed correctly, these problems
> would not be a bother.
>

So maybe you can tell me this why do they need to sniff at all? Why do 
they need to know who's browser is used. Make the website work with all 
browsers, is that not possible?

0
Danny
4/20/2017 3:23:23 PM
Danny Kile wrote:

> Daniel wrote:
>> On 20/04/2017 6:45 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Actually, I didn't. You should have deleted that attribution line when 
you deleted my text, to make it clear you were quoting Daniel.

>> Yeap!! Long time ago, I came across the saying "When you do
>> something, do it once, do it well, and move on!"
>>
>> Sort of been my motto!
>>
>> If web sites were correctly coded, or sniffed correctly, these
>> problems would not be a bother.
>
> So maybe you can tell me this why do they need to sniff at all? Why
> do they need to know whose browser is used. Make the website work
> with all browsers, is that not possible?

It's possible, if you understand W3C compliance standards. But too many 
web designers think they have to write different code for different 
browsers, and if that's your assumption you need to sniff.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher

0
Paul
4/20/2017 4:48:15 PM
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> Danny Kile wrote:
> 
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> On 20/04/2017 6:45 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> 
> Actually, I didn't. You should have deleted that attribution line when 
> you deleted my text, to make it clear you were quoting Daniel.
> 
>>> Yeap!! Long time ago, I came across the saying "When you do
>>> something, do it once, do it well, and move on!"
>>>
>>> Sort of been my motto!
>>>
>>> If web sites were correctly coded, or sniffed correctly, these
>>> problems would not be a bother.
>>
>> So maybe you can tell me this why do they need to sniff at all? Why
>> do they need to know whose browser is used. Make the website work
>> with all browsers, is that not possible?
> 
> It's possible, if you understand W3C compliance standards. But too many 
> web designers think they have to write different code for different 
> browsers, and if that's your assumption you need to sniff.
> 
It's a result of Mosaic/Netscape vs Microsoft browser wars from 20 years 
ago. MS knew better and built Windows-only extensions into early 
versions of Internet Explorer and (deliberately?) mis-implemented other 
"standards". Windows fanbois loved these and used them willy-nilly.

If you wanted to develop a cross-browser website you HAD to /browser/ 
sniff - because this also predated the idea of rendering engines.

One commnon sniffing JS code was developed, anyone who was interested in 
cross browser support used it.

Eventually web standards incorporated many of these extensions (around 
the time of HTML 4, and specially HTML 5), but the rot had set in ... 
and who goes back to rework old code that still works (for various 
values of work).

Innovate in haste, live with the consequences at leisure :(

djc
[who has vague memories of copying sniffer code in the late 1990s, and 
being pissed off that it was necessary]

0
djc
4/20/2017 11:16:01 PM
Daniel wrote on 20-04-17 11:38:
> On 20/04/2017 2:26 AM, Ray_Net wrote:
>> Richmond wrote on 19-04-17 10:58:
>>> Ray_Net wrote:
>>>> Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
>>>>> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>>>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user 
>>>>>>> prefbar or
>>>>>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>>>>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>>>>>> FRG
>>>>>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>>>>> I override my UA with:
>>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>>> Firefox/45.0
>>>>>
>>>>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did
>>>>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER
>>>> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !
>>>>
>>> I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
>>> browser.
>>>
>>>
>> Who's care ? Nobody knows SeaMonkey - and they don't want to know ....
>>
>> Tell me WHY SM must identify itself as SM ? .. when a lot of SM people
>> change the UA string reflecting ONLY as Firfox.
>> If the default UA string will be "Firefox" only...
>> A. There is no need to fiddle changing the UA string.
>> B. All site sniffing wrongly ... will work correctly.
>>
>> AND
>>
>> Due to the fact that:
>> 1. Webmaster checks only for IE,Google/Chrome, Opera and FireFox but
>> NEVER for SeaMonkey
>> 2. And due to the fact the coding for SeaMonkey Must be IDENTICAL for
>> Firefox.
>> SM must present his browser as a Firefox browser.
>
> Hey, Ray, if you are in favour of SeaMonkey giving up the battle with 
> self-identification, I'm guessing you also agree with the Basque 
> peoples giving up their battle for self-identification!!
>
> What about the French-speaking, mostly Walloon population, of the 
> Kingdom of Belgium?? Should they just join the Dutch-speaking, mostly 
> Flemish community, which constitutes about 59% of the population of 
> Belgium?? Or should they fight, fight, fight to become part of the 
> French Nation?? Or become a totally independent nation like the Basque 
> peoples fought for so long for??
>
> Same Same SeaMonkey!!
>
The language problems are different.
If I follow your idea, I should change the UA string from:
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46
to:
User agent: SeaMonkey/2.46

That IS a REAL self-identification.

Test it, and you will be surprised :-)

0
Ray_Net
4/21/2017 10:01:01 PM
On 22/04/2017 8:01 AM, Ray_Net wrote:
> Daniel wrote on 20-04-17 11:38:
>> On 20/04/2017 2:26 AM, Ray_Net wrote:
>>> Richmond wrote on 19-04-17 10:58:
>>>> Ray_Net wrote:
>>>>> Danny Kile wrote on 18-04-17 17:37:
>>>>>> J. Weaver Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Google is doing incorrect user agent sniffing. If you user
>>>>>>>> prefbar or
>>>>>>>> another user agent switcher and change the user agent to a plain
>>>>>>>> Firefox one for google it works. Please complain to them.
>>>>>>>> FRG
>>>>>>> That was it - thanks. UA override added, complaint filed.  -JW
>>>>>> I override my UA with:
>>>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>>>> Firefox/45.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This resolved the problem thank you to all that replied. To whom did
>>>>>> you file the complaint with? URL or address would be great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> Therefore SM must use this UA as the default one - THEN WE NEVER
>>>>> ENCOUNTER PROBLEMS !
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree with that, because it would not be correctly identifying the
>>>> browser.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Who's care ? Nobody knows SeaMonkey - and they don't want to know ....
>>>
>>> Tell me WHY SM must identify itself as SM ? .. when a lot of SM people
>>> change the UA string reflecting ONLY as Firfox.
>>> If the default UA string will be "Firefox" only...
>>> A. There is no need to fiddle changing the UA string.
>>> B. All site sniffing wrongly ... will work correctly.
>>>
>>> AND
>>>
>>> Due to the fact that:
>>> 1. Webmaster checks only for IE,Google/Chrome, Opera and FireFox but
>>> NEVER for SeaMonkey
>>> 2. And due to the fact the coding for SeaMonkey Must be IDENTICAL for
>>> Firefox.
>>> SM must present his browser as a Firefox browser.
>>
>> Hey, Ray, if you are in favour of SeaMonkey giving up the battle with
>> self-identification, I'm guessing you also agree with the Basque
>> peoples giving up their battle for self-identification!!
>>
>> What about the French-speaking, mostly Walloon population, of the
>> Kingdom of Belgium?? Should they just join the Dutch-speaking, mostly
>> Flemish community, which constitutes about 59% of the population of
>> Belgium?? Or should they fight, fight, fight to become part of the
>> French Nation?? Or become a totally independent nation like the Basque
>> peoples fought for so long for??
>>
>> Same Same SeaMonkey!!
>>
> The language problems are different.
> If I follow your idea, I should change the UA string from:
> User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101
> Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46
> to:
> User agent: SeaMonkey/2.46
>
> That IS a REAL self-identification.
>
> Test it, and you will be surprised :-)
>
Well, I don't think I ever considered just using "User agent: 
SeaMonkey/2.46" because, as far as I know, the rest of the stuff 
(Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101) does 
actually achieve something in the Internet world.

What I'm trying to suggest is that, if you like SeaMonkey, you/me/us 
should be doing everything we can to promote it and make the Internet 
work for/with it, and not hide behind Firefox's skirts!!

(And, one day, the correct Gecko date/Version number will appear in the 
User Agent string!!)

-- 
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.46 Build identifier: 20161213183751
0
Daniel
4/22/2017 12:38:29 AM
Danny Kile composed on 2017-04-20 11:23 (UTC-0400):

> So maybe you can tell me this why do they need to sniff at all?
Only because their design methods are broken is there to them an apparent need,
and this largely or mostly because of their determination to exercise maximum
control over how you see what you see rather than how what you get works or not.

> Why do they need to know who's browser is used.
So they can justify chastising those who don't use the browsers they test with,
or reject allowing them access to their content; an extra way to shoot
themselves in their feet.

> Make the website work with all browsers, is that not possible?

It is possible only when not using incompetent design methods. It's a monkey
see, monkey do design heritage. They get taught wrong and don't know any better,
and there are none adequately motivated to cause needed educational changes, or
changes in the tools they use.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
0
Felix
4/23/2017 6:42:38 AM
Reply: