PDA

View Full Version : [CLOSED][3.0.0] Support for SRWare Iron in Ext Core



iom_dev1
3 Aug 2009, 3:26 AM
Ext version tested:
Ext 3.0+ rev 4954
Browser versions tested against:
SRWare Iron 2.0.178.0Operating System:

WinXP Pro
Description:
SRWare Iron is detected as Safari instead of Chrome.
Test Case:

<script type="text/javascript" src="ext-base.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.write(
'<pre>'+
navigator.userAgent + '<br>' +
'<br>Chrome:\t ' + Ext.isChrome +
'<br>WebKit:\t ' + Ext.isWebKit +
'<br>Safari:\t ' + Ext.isSafari +
'<br>Safari3: ' + Ext.isSafari3 +
'<br>Safari4: ' + Ext.isSafari4 +
'</pre>'
&nbsp;);
</script>

See this URL: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

Possible fix:


Index: Ext.js
===================================================================
--- Ext.js (revision 37)
+++ Ext.js (working copy)
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
DOC = document,
isStrict = DOC.compatMode == "CSS1Compat",
isOpera = check(/opera/),
- isChrome = check(/chrome/),
+ isChrome = check(/chrome|iron/), //SRWare Iron is relabeled Chrome
isWebKit = check(/webkit/),
isSafari = !isChrome && check(/safari/),
isSafari2 = isSafari && check(/applewebkit\/4/), // unique to Safari 2

mystix
3 Aug 2009, 3:30 AM
i'm curious as to exactly how many ppl are using this browser to warrant this change. :-?

VinylFox
3 Aug 2009, 3:51 AM
i'm curious as to exactly how many ppl are using this browser to warrant this change. :-?

Yeah, no kidding - This is the first time I have even heard of this browser.

anotherpit
3 Aug 2009, 4:01 AM
Iron is perfect choice for corporative users (all advantages of Chrome minus autoupdates), so I join in iom_dev's request for bug fix.

tryanDLS
3 Aug 2009, 6:09 AM
Not a bug - SRWare isn't on the list of supported browsers. Do we really want to continue to add these kind of checks every time some minor browser is created?

evant
3 Aug 2009, 6:18 AM
As suggested by others, this isn't a bug. It's not on our supported browser list and it's not likely to get enough market share to consider doing so.

Marking this one as closed.

iom_dev1
3 Aug 2009, 7:33 AM
I informed the developers of the Iron browser about the issue and I'm now waiting for a response.

mjlecomte
3 Aug 2009, 9:24 AM
As said, this is not a "bug" as this is not advertised as a supported browser. However, you could add a feature request to have it added in the checks.

If you'd like to go that route I suggest adding a post to General Discussion forum to post / poll if others are using this browser.

It does seem like an issue for Iron though, that if they're a Chrome variant that the user agent for the browser should be named some variant of 'chrome'.

Condor
3 Aug 2009, 10:07 AM
I informed the developers of the Iron browser about the issue and I'm now waiting for a response.

IMHO that would indeed be the proper route.

A browser that is largely based on a another browser shouldn't invent a brand new useragent string, but add it's own name to it, e.g.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US)
AppleWebKit/530.9 (KHTML, like Gecko)
Chrome/2.0.172.37
Safari/530.9
Iron/530.9
(here you see how much Chrome is trying to be detected like Safari)

anotherpit
3 Aug 2009, 11:46 PM
A browser that is largely based on a another browser shouldn't invent a brand new useragent string, but add it's own name to it
agree