Jump to content

Mathwiz

Member
  • Posts

    1,718
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Mathwiz last won the day on June 18 2023

Mathwiz had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Mathwiz

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 7 x64

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Mathwiz's Achievements

1.1k

Reputation

  1. I hear you. But I still update more often than once every five months! I believe the 2-24 Serpent versions are stable and that's what I'm running now. There have been no updates in several weeks, long enough to identify and fix any big issues.
  2. NM 27 and NM 28 typically use the same profile folder: %appdata%\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon. If you wish to use both NM 27 and NM 28 on the same PC, you should make one or both portable to keep their profiles separate. (I believe a portable loader is mentioned in the first post of this thread.)
  3. Found a polyfill for that and tried it. Unfortunately, I think my polyfill needs a polyfill of its own: renderView: "TypeError: ctx.getTransform(...).invertSelf is not a function" viewer.js:9719:19 "invertSelf?" Good grief....
  4. That is certainly possible. I'm sure it was part of Chase's decision to require 109 (although only 106 on Android), since Chrome 109 was the oldest version to get the WebP fix last year. But again, at least Chase can argue that they're trying to protect their customers' money; what's Science Direct trying to protect? As you noted, a Web server is at no risk from older browsers. But I bet a lot of Web developers don't understand that. I think a lot of folks, even cybersecurity experts, don't really understand cybersecurity. They just know there are "vulnerabilities" and don't delve into what exactly is "vulnerable" and what isn't - so they just blindly try to close off every "vulnerability" they can get away with.
  5. Most likely, Science Direct didn't develop their Web site at all; they just hired some Web developer to do it, and the Web developer is still doing things the old way (UA sniffing). Chase.com is guilty of this too, but at least you don't expect better from bankers. In (sort of) defense of UA sniffing, if the site wouldn't work, it's probably better to sniff the UA and give a message than to just have the Web site not work properly and frustrate the user. But in that case, they shouldn't require a newer version than what's actually needed for the site to work. Since the site apparently runs fine with Chromium 87, they don't need to be requiring (say) Chromium 109. I suspect the developers tested with 109 (or whatever version), saw that it worked, and just blindly put in the version that they tested with as the requirement. Lazy, but who's going to complain (other than us)? Anyway, thanks for the tip on a SSUAO extension for Chrome. I've been wanting one, but the user agent extensions I've seen recommended here haven't been site-specific.
  6. Yes, previous calendar month. I suppose what I really meant was, "within the past 30 days or so...." Rats. 2.16 legacy didn't work on Serpent 52 either. Web console says something about "ctx.GetTransform is not a function." 'Twas worth a try, though....
  7. Standard version of 2.14 works; legacy version of 2.15 works; neither version of 2.16 works. I actually haven't tried the standard version of 2.15 yet, so it's possible that it will work too - but as long as the legacy version works, I'm happy. These experiments were actually with the Serpent 55 build from Feb. 8, 2024 (i.e., earlier this month); I haven't tried them with UXP (Serpent 52) but I expect that, if it works with 55, it works with 52 as well. Of course I'll confirm that before I publish anything.
  8. Well, as usual, I was wrong - the first version of pdf.js that doesn't work (either regular or "legacy" version) is actually 2.16.105, the last published build of the V2 series, and by implication, the last version that does work is 2.15.349. So 2.15 appears to be the limit, at least without polyfills of some kind. Mozilla appears to have updated their "legacy" translator between those two versions: the "legacy" version of 2.16.105 is smaller than the "legacy" version of 2.15.349, even though the regular version is slightly larger, which says to me that Mozilla removed some translations and/or polyfills from their legacy translator between those versions. This may account for 2.16.105 no longer working. Still, 2.15 is five years newer than 1.7 (July 31, 2022 vs. early 2017) and supports more of the functionality of Adobe Reader, albeit with a UI resembling Mozilla's post-Australis UI, Photon. Heck, even 2.5.207 (last version with the Australis-like UI) is three years newer (June 1, 2020). So we're overdue for an update.
  9. I'm up to version 2.14.305 as of now. (The Photon-like UI works fine but looks a little "alien" to my eyes. If you're using a Photon theme, though, it may look like it fits right in.) My guess is that 3.0 will be the first version that doesn't work - but they do have a "legacy" build of 3.0 that might. I'll keep you posted. Localization "should" work - the updated pdf.js looks for its localization files in ./web/locale and should ignore the built-in en-US locale (which I didn't bother to delete). But I haven't tested it. Of course this is all with Serpent, which now supports newer JS constructs than the last XP-compatible Seamonkey version did. The extension developer may have stopped at 2.3.200 because that's all his SeaMonkey version could handle - or it could be that he just got tired of the project; I don't know. That said, an extension is much simpler and easier to install than replacing the version built into omni.ja, so I may experiment with updating that extension, @AstroSkipper style
  10. I tend to agree - but there's also no reason not to. The main reasons for making 64-bit versions of programs are to address large amounts of RAM in a single process, and to boost performance. Neither is as important for email clients as for browsers. But @Jody Thornton wants one. I could see making it a low-priority project (not much demand), but unless there's something that just won't easily compile in 64-bit mode, I see no harm in giving it to him. The only downside is that the file would be slightly larger (and of course it would only run on 64-bit machines). I made a bit of progress on this last night. The "build" folder is a drop-in replacement. The "web" folder is almost a drop-in replacement, but you do have to make some changes to viewer.js and viewer.html. I got viewer.js figured out last night. I'll see if I can get viewer.html figured out tonight, then I'll see how new the version can get before the Javascript becomes hopelessly incompatible. Edit: I got it sorted and am up to version 2.5.207 from June 1, 2020. This is the last version with the traditional UI; version 2.6 has a "Photon-like" UI. 2.5 has a couple more buttons but it looks and acts pretty much the same. Version 1.7: Version 2.5:
  11. Well, as it turns out, there are some differences between the downloaded pdf.js releases, and the one built into omni.ja. Figures. (Couldn't make it simple, could you, Mozilla?) In the downloaded releases, the locale files are in a "web" subfolder under the first path; not in a separate branch of the directory tree, as in the version built into omni.ja. I haven't yet determined whether the replaced l10n.js accesses the locale data from the new subfolder under "web" Further testing will be needed to figure this thing out completely Edit: Still working on it, but I have figured out that the locale data built into omni.ja is US English only; the locale data in the standalone version is multilingual. So if I can figure this out, at least pdf.js will start working in other languages.... What have I gotten myself into? Oh, well, I can always just give up....
  12. @anton12, your hostility mystifies me! (We are talking about Web browsers here. Unlike the canaries of the past, nobody dies. It's just a metaphor.) Posting on this thread does not obligate anyone to be a beta tester for @roytam1's browser builds. Some have taken on this task, but voluntarily. I appreciate their efforts, but I see no reason why I should be expected to join them. I have my own interests, which I will pursue as I see fit. As Billy Joel sang many years ago, "this is my life; go ahead with your own life, and leave me alone!" (Or - less politely - MYOFB.) Now - on to a (hopefully) more interesting topic. On another thread, this was brought up: 7 years ago seems pretty old to me! So I started wondering if newer versions would work. I found that pdf.js is contained in file omni.ja, so it's not super easy to replace the code, but it is possible. So as a test, I downloaded and extracted version 1.8.188, and replaced path chrome/pdfjs/content in omni.ja with that "newer" (by 1 month) code. It seems to work, although I saw no obvious differences between 1.7.348 and 1.8.188. Still, the fact that it didn't just blow up in my face is encouraging. I plan to try progressively newer versions to see how far we can push pdf.js before being stopped by some JS feature not yet implemented in UXP. Stay tuned....
  13. It is undoubtedly true that those Web designers don't care one whit about compatibility with any browser other than the latest Chrome/Firefox/Safari! But that's not quite what I meant when I said it made "no sense" for a Web site to host pdf.js on their site. What I meant was, they went to some extra trouble to do this, but got no apparent benefit from going to that trouble! It didn't make their .pdf pages readable on any of the "big three" browsers, since they all can display .pdf's without any help; it didn't speed up displaying of .pdf's; it broke any NPAPI plugins their Firefox users might be using (admittedly, the likelihood of them caring about that is only slightly higher than the likelihood of them caring about us Chromium 86 users); and it didn't save the site any bandwidth (to the contrary, it costs them additional bandwidth to download pdf.js to every site visitor who clicks one of their .pdf links)! So why did they bother? The only reason I can think of is the same one you suggested: Firefox snobs? It sounds crazy, but as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through his fictional character Sherlock Holmes, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
  14. I don't know that it's necessarily "sad," but it is true. "Old-timers" on these threads are aware that these builds often include new features (and some old features - e10s) that aren't fully debugged. It's a double-edged sword; we're often the first to get fixes to longstanding bugs too (remember webp?), so there is an upside. I think it's fine as long as you know what you're getting, but "newbies" who stumble onto these builds may not fully appreciate that, so they may run into problems on occasion. Luckily for them, this thread exists to help them out, and Roytam has always been quick to revert any changes that caused unforeseen problems. Personally, I don't anxiously download every week's release. I let others be the canaries in the coal mine. And even then, I always keep my previous download as a backup, since things occasionally go sideways with new releases. I encourage others to do the same.
  15. I tested [major]; it does not fix Chase. So keep [minor] around in case you run across other Web sites like Chase.
×
×
  • Create New...