Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 4)

roytam1
 Share

Recommended Posts


DanR20

DanR20

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, VistaLover said:

... Just fresh from the oven:

Those among you here using MyPal68 with uBO (WE) as the main adblocker, it has just stopped supporting that browser choice... :angry: ; well, once again the "web on mobile" takes precedence over the "web on desktop/laptop" :realmad: ; gorhil decided to bump the minimum Firefox requirement in his extension from v68 to v79, to cater to Firefox Mobile users on Android (Google here, again :realmad: ...): 

 

All is not lost for 78.0 desktop users, if I'm reading gorhill right the necessary API is there so it's just a matter of going into the manifest file and bumping the minimum down 1 version. Those on any 68.0 version will lose out although the filters should still update for the foreseeable future.

Edited by DanR20
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mathwiz

Mathwiz

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, VistaLover said:

Those among you here using MyPal68 with uBO (WE) as the main adblocker, it has just stopped supporting that browser choice... :angry: ; well, once again the "web on mobile" takes precedence over the "web on desktop/laptop" :realmad: ; gorhil decided to bump the minimum Firefox requirement in his extension from v68 to v79, to cater to Firefox Mobile users on Android

So, on Android, Firefox 79 is required, but on desktop, FF 78 is required - I assume both Firefoxes use the same GUID so you can't set different minimum versions for each.... This one actually sounds like a Mozilla mistake to me.

But the more interesting question to me is, why is FF 78/79 suddenly required at all, when 68 was adequate before? What new uBO feature required a 10-version jump just to keep blocking unwanted sites/scripts/CSS? This doesn't seem like a mere matter of not testing older browsers; I think it more likely the latest uBO uses a Googlism.

Googlism: (noun) Any JavaScript or CSS feature which was proposed by Google, Inc., and which causes browsers unaware of the feature to render Web sites using it, or to execute add-ons using it, incorrectly.

(Note that Googlisms aren't necessarily all bad things; but they do, by this definition, necessarily have one bad effect: breaking older browsers.)

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mathwiz

Mathwiz

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, DanR20 said:

All is not lost for 78.0 users, if I'm reading gorhill right the necessary API is there so it's just a matter of going into the manifest file and bumping the minimum down 1 version.

That would break the digital signature though. Does FF 78 still have a way to allow unsigned add-ons? I thought Mozilla phased out that option somewhere in the 50's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VistaLover

VistaLover

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DanR20 said:

Those on any 68.0 version will lose out

... Hence my reference to Mypal68 users (a Fx68esr fork that can run under XP/Vista) ...

37 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

But the more interesting question to me is, why is FF 78/79 suddenly required at all, when 68 was adequate before? What new uBO feature required a 10-version jump just to keep blocking unwanted sites/scripts/CSS? This doesn't seem like a mere matter of not testing older browsers; I think it more likely the latest uBO uses a Googlism.

... gorhill started using Unicode property escapes :

C4SHz8P.png

https://caniuse.com/mdn-javascript_builtins_regexp_property_escapes

(First implemented in desktop Fx 78 / Chrome 64; FWIW, this feature was implemented in UXP only last Christmas, thanks to martok :thumbup )

Edited by VistaLover
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanR20

DanR20

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mathwiz said:

That would break the digital signature though. Does FF 78 still have a way to allow unsigned add-ons? I thought Mozilla phased out that option somewhere in the 50's.

For the regular release yes it would break but 78esr isn't a problem. I actually have kept a portable 78esr version on hand because it's the last one that allows me to easily import search engines using an old script.  

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mathwiz

Mathwiz

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

gorhil started using Unicode property escapes

Unicode property escapes look like an example of a Googlism that's useful: they were proposed by Google; nevertheless, they do something that's not easy to accomplish without the feature. So I sort of understand why gorhill might have started using them.

Ironically, Serpent now understands Unicode property escapes - it appears we got that feature at the same time as named regexp capture groups. But of course Serpent (even Serpent 55) lacks many WE APIs, so gorhill's WE-based uBO wouldn't work anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, VistaLover said:

(First implemented in desktop Fx 78 / Chrome 64; FWIW, this feature was implemented in UXP only last Christmas, thanks to martok :thumbup )

Thanks for the reminder!

I've been intending to test my "must-have" web sites (bank accounts and bill payment accounts) against the Christmas Releases.

Refresh me memory - which releases have this implementation?  I'm assuming only NM28, St52, and St55 ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AstroSkipper

AstroSkipper

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

That would break the digital signature though. Does FF 78 still have a way to allow unsigned add-ons? I thought Mozilla phased out that option somewhere in the 50's.

There is a working method to disable the signature check for add-ons to allow installation of unsigned or modified add-ons in Mypal 68 and of course other Firefox versions as for example FF 78. I implemented that in my installation months ago. Therefore, I am able to modify existing add-ons without any (re)signing. :) That was one of the reasons I could install the actually legacy add-on Custom Buttons in Mypal 68: 

In the screenshot of the just linked post, you can notice that there is no warning after installing the legacy, unsigned add-on Custom Buttons in Mypal 68. :P

Edited by AstroSkipper
Update of content
2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VistaLover

VistaLover

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

where we start labeling any-and-all "Googlisms" as a step "backward".

... Your secure link to the "spacer.png" image won't display properly, because the host (velosportsrehab.com) uses a self-signed+expired certificate: 

velosportsrehab.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate expired on Tue, 5 July 2022 03:25.
The current time is Mon, 20 Feb 2023 17:33.
(Error code: SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER)

A plain HTTP link would be OK :) ...

Edited by VistaLover
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotHereToPlayGames

NotHereToPlayGames

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

... Your secure link to the "spacer.png" image won't display properly, because the host (velosportsrehab.com) uses an expired certificate: 

velosportsrehab.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate expired on Tue, 5 July 2022 03:25.
The current time is Mon, 20 Feb 2023 17:33.
(Error code: SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER)

A plain HTTP link will display OK :) ...

MSFN's reply-box does not allow HTTP image links.

So I added the "s" to httpS when posting.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VistaLover

VistaLover

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

MSFN's reply-box does not allow HTTP image links.

... to be embedded ;) ; posting a simple HTTP link (clickable by the reader - but we know "how" this could go with members "here" :whistle:) should be OK:

http://velosportsrehab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/14190549632_3ecff46035_o-e1404331612790.jpg

Edited by VistaLover
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AstroSkipper

AstroSkipper

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 2/20/2023 at 12:05 PM, AstroSkipper said:
On 2/20/2023 at 3:23 AM, Mathwiz said:

That would break the digital signature though. Does FF 78 still have a way to allow unsigned add-ons? I thought Mozilla phased out that option somewhere in the 50's.

There is a working method to disable the signature check for add-ons to allow installation of unsigned or modified add-ons in Mypal 68 and of course other Firefox versions as for example FF 78. I implemented that in my installation months ago. Therefore, I am able to modify existing add-ons without any (re)signing. :) That was one of the reasons I could install the actually legacy add-on Custom Buttons in Mypal 68: 

In the screenshot of the just linked post, you can notice that there is no warning after installing the legacy, unsigned add-on Custom Buttons in Mypal 68. :P

And by the way, disabling the signature check for add-ons to allow installation of unsigned or modified add-ons in Firefox/Mypal versions makes it possible to edit old abandoned or no longer fully functioning extensions and bring them back to life. :thumbup superouais.gif

Greetings from Germany, AstroSkipper smilie_schild_035.gif

Edited by AstroSkipper
Update of content
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...