ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.1030 Redux

[NotHereToPlayGames]

12 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

The "more" correct way to do it is:

That is too complicated.  

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Although, to be perfectly honest, if that is the way to display "code" that shrinks and expands, then I have always felt that roytam's very very very long scroll-scroll-scroll then scroll some more should always be done that way.

[UCyborg]

2 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

I'm kind of astonished by the design of this Web site. Am I correct in concluding that, rather than using the .pdf viewer built into every major Web browser, they coded their own?

In Javascript? Why would anyone do this?

It's not their own, it's the same thing Mozilla Firefox ships with, maybe different version, it's called pdf.js, indeed written in JavaScript.

[VistaLover]

OT

19 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

then I have always felt that roytam's very very very long scroll-scroll-scroll then scroll some more should always be done that way.

... I use a userstyle for that :

@-moz-document domain("msfn.org") {
     body.ipsApp article.ipsComment div[data-quotedata*='roytam1'] div.cPost_contentWrap p {
         max-height: 300px !important;
         overflow-y: auto !important;
    }
}

; I've named it:

msfn.org @roytam1 "long" posts fix

...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

26 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

; I've named it:

msfn.org @roytam1 "long" posts fix

...

  SWEET!  I've added it to my MSFN userstyle!

 

edit:  and added some very specific "members" who do make valuable contributions every once in a while despite the vast MAJORITY of their posts being nothing but walking right up to the line without actually crossing that line.

a "pink background" now visually tells me right from the get-go, "warning, possibly inciteful and not insightful, proceed at your own risk"  

Edited February 25 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Mathwiz]

3 hours ago, VistaLover said:

Indeed (and pardon the slight OT ), the "online-PDF-viewer" URI: 

https://storage.enganchesaragon.com/public-websites/ecommerce/pdf_viewer/web/viewer.html?file=https://storage.enganchesaragon.com/public-websites/ecommerce/Inst/C0801E.pdf

does load in last week's Serpent 52, but the pages are rendered blank there :

<OT>Yes; St 55 does the same thing. And, I saw no errors in the Error Console! So no clue what missing functionality is needed to get that thing working in St.

Maybe MCP's StructuredClone implementation has let me down again. I'll try @UCyborg's 250-line polyfill and see if that fixes it. Edit: No luck, so it must be something else, since we know @UCyborg's version (actually ungap's version) does fix it in Chrome.

2 hours ago, UCyborg said:

It's not their own, it's the same thing Mozilla Firefox ships with, maybe different version, it's called pdf.js, indeed written in JavaScript.

So presumably St (52/55) use an older version of the same thing, since they were forked from Firefox.</OT> But I still can't understand why one would host pdf.js on a Web page, since Firefox and Chromium already have the needed functionality built in.

Edited February 26 by Mathwiz

[Mathwiz]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

No worries here.

I have the 36-line version saved also (I have it labeled as [minor]).

I've never actually needed it but it *IS* a "confirmed fix" for a CHASE web site so I keep it just-in-case.

I don't have a CHASE account to know if the [major] version does or does not work on CHASE.

If it DOES, then I would throw away the [minor] and just resort to the [major].

But if the [minor] does have SOME web sites that it does work on, then until I can prove that it works where the [major] does not, then I keep both for just-in-case.

I tested [major]; it does not fix Chase. So keep [minor] around in case you run across other Web sites like Chase.

[UCyborg]

8 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

But I still can't understand why one would host pdf.js on a Web page, since Firefox and Chromium already have the needed functionality built in.

No idea, tell them to use PDFObject.js instead?

One odd thing about this library, judging by the code, it supports detecting PDF support via ActiveX plugin (who uses Internet Explorer for web browsing in 2024?), but not via NPAPI plugin, so it doesn't work for browsers supporting NPAPI whose users may have a decent (maybe even paid-for) PDF support in a browser through a NPAPI plugin, eg. PDF-XChange Editor and probably some other capable programs, which are still better than anything that ever was and dare I say ever will be written in JavaScript for rendering PDFs. Though it wouldn't take much to fix it.

But it works nicely for typical Chromium and Firefox, using built-in functionality of the browser. And maybe there are perks to using pdf.js that I'm not aware of?

10 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Although, to be perfectly honest, if that is the way to display "code" that shrinks and expands, then I have always felt that roytam's very very very long scroll-scroll-scroll then scroll some more should always be done that way.

It makes code look nice (syntax highlighting) and shows you have a basic literacy when it comes to using forum software.

I've always felt roytam1's endless commit logs should be wrapped in a spoiler tag. Forum is primarily discussion focused, for the rest you can go to GitHub or do git clone and git log or whatever.

Edited February 26 by UCyborg

[Anbima]

18 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

P.S.: Per Google Translate, that line in German above translates to "An error occurred when loading the PDF file." So I'd guess that this Javascript PDF viewer was written by a German. (I realize that doesn't tell us much.)

P.P.S.: Maybe the German thing is a red herring. I just tried to open the .pdf in Acrobat 9 and was told that I need a newer Acrobat version! So perhaps, to answer my original question, the .pdf is a very new format, and the Javascript .pdf viewer actually does allow (slightly) older browsers to view the .pdf. Like Chrome 98 or so.

 

I don't think the site was programmed by a German, as it is a Spanish site.
The German message probably comes from my browser.

When I save the PDF and then open it with 360Chrome, it is displayed normally.
In my opinion, it makes no sense to integrate a separate PDF viewer here.

[VistaLover]

58 minutes ago, Anbima said:

In my opinion, it makes no sense to integrate a separate PDF viewer here.

... Couldn't agree more  ; but, "no sense" is probably only "applicable" to frequenters of these threads, on "legacy" browser engines  ; I can assure you that the web designers of that Spanish site did NOT, even for a mere second, think of "backwards compatibility" ; they're probably "trained" to expect each and every eventual user of their service to be running the latest Chrome/Firefox/Safari, where the original "issue" you reported (and generated many additional posts here) is simply non-existent - it works right away and the user "there" doesn't notice any issue; he/she just moves on with the browsing; the comparison between "sensical" and "non-sensical" never crosses his/her mind ...

It is us here inside the MSFN "older OS" forums who harbour a mentality of being "the centre of the IT universe", whereas, in fact, we're just one dying old star which has practically extinguished all of its fusion-able material  ...

Edited February 26 by VistaLover

[Anbima]

20 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Here's the one @UCyborg posted about a month ago:

 

That works, thank you.
Is it possible to get this into a separate extension?

Sorry for the question, but I'm not so familiar with it.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I really think you insist on looking at it the difficult way.

Tampermonkey is a Difficulty Level 4 on a scale of 0 (very easy) to 10 (very hard).

The "separate extension" route where you insist on creating your own manifest.json, your own content.js, and your own polyfill.js, then packaging those as your own extension, is a Difficulty Level 6.

And the self-create method hasn't actually been tested or verfied as even working.  I see no theoretical reason that it should not work, but nor have I seen anybody demonstrate that it does work.

[jumper]

 

20 hours ago, VistaLover said:

1. click the code button (</>) in the MSFN editor toolbar

Gone this week.

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

still here for me

Edited February 26 by NotHereToPlayGames

[VistaLover]

On 2/26/2024 at 1:36 AM, UCyborg said:

It's not their own, it's the same thing Mozilla Firefox ships with, maybe different version, it's called pdf.js, indeed written in JavaScript.

... Indeed  ; as the web console portion of the first image I posted previously reveals, the "enganchesaragon.com" site are self-hosting v3.0.279 of the pdf.js library; according to the GitHub repo for it, tag 3.0.279 was cut on 2022-10-29 ;

23 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

So, presumably, St (52/55) use an older version of the same thing,

... The library inside the latest Serpent 52 build is of version "1.7.348-git-754c4bd", committed on 2017-03-04, i.e. 5 1/2 yrs older (!) ... It would then seem that v3.0.279 (from 2022) requires platform features not fully compatible with UXP  ...

I'm uncertain as to how to proceed to find the version of the pdf.js (equivalent) lib inside 360EEv13.5 and/or KMB; Chrome 86 stable was released on 2020-10-06, 87 stable on 2020-11-17; Google probably don't use the same lib Mozilla maintain ; as discussion here has proved already, Ch86/87 (autumn of 2020) don't support the much "younger" Mozilla pdf.js v3.0.279, that came two years after those browsers were released...

23 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

But I still can't understand why one would host pdf.js on a Web page,
since Firefox and Chromium already have the needed functionality built in.

After my analysis, one "probable" answer why "enganchesaragon.com" choose to self-host an instance of the Mozilla PDF.js lib to display the PDF files "they" serve is: "They" prefer it over the native-PDF-viewer implementation on users' (mostly Chrome-based) browsers... Don't know what else to think of ...

Edited February 27 by VistaLover