Working with different web-browsers with their string of version numbers along with their myriad list of configuration is a real pain.
I'm wondering if anyone has come up with a web-page that can dump the browser settings to the browser so that it can be saved and forwarded to the developer?
Thanks!
Something like this?
http://mybrowserinfo.com/detail.asp
Related
I am looking for something that will help me learn how to set up my site so that when people go to it there is the regular version and the mobile version. Problem I am having is that most of the sites I see on google are pay sites that help you set that up. Can I just make two versions of my site and load them both on my hosting? Also how does it know when to load the mobile versus the regular? These are the types of things I am looking to learn, any suggestions of places to start?
Please please please make sure you do the following:
Only do a mobile version if it adds value.
If a user requests a deep link from a mobile device, don't redirect to the mobile home page
Allow the user to choose to view the full version
Make sure tablets such as the iPad uses the full version by default
Don't serve WML to the hi-res smartphones such as the iPhone
If your full sized website is unusable on a phone, consider tweaking it to be more suitable (don't print content text too wide).
Modern iPhones and iPads are perfectly capable of handling most full sized websites, there is little need for a mobile version unless it actually improves the user experience. I hate to get redirected to a baby interface that doesn't provide the information I need.
Good examples of mobile versions include:
Google website
Gmail website
Mediocre examples include:
Any blogpress site
Bad examples include
anything that uses WML
Here's Apple's advice on providing mobile versions to the iPad:
Note that the Safari on iPad user
agent string contains the word
"Mobile", but does not contain the
word "iPhone". If you are currently
serving mobile content to any browser
that self-identifies as "Mobile", you
should modify your user agent string
checks to look for iPad and avoid
sending it the wrong version of your
site. The version numbers in this
string are subject to change over time
as new versions of Safari on iPad
become available, so any code that
checks the user agent string should
not rely on version numbers.
Something to look into would be the #mobile css media type, which is used to load a different styles when loading in a mobile device. I am not sure which devices support it, but I imagine it would be most of the popular models. As far as your suggestion, you can certainly host two separate sites, but I would defiantly go through Alex's suggestions before you go through the trouble.
http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/
Alex had some good suggestions, but if you really want to serve up a specific version based on mobile or non-mobile you can take a look at the http header. In some cases the User Agent will give it away, but not always. Check out this link for details: http://detectmobilebrowsers.mobi/
We have a browser based application written in PHP in which I want to drag-n-drop files from the windows explorer or directly email attachments(this would be very cool). On dropping the files in the browser application, it should save it on a particular folder on the server. Any help on how this can be achieved would be really appreciated.
JS or HTML5 would seem to be your best bets. But I have had trouble with d&d in MSIE (FF was ok). The downside is that HTML is not scheduled to be finalized until 2022(!) - you can expect support before then (even today), but it may not be consistent.
There is a good HTML demo here http://ljouanneau.com/lab/html5/demodragdrop.html
This will also allow you to d&d stuff from the browser to the PC (bi-directional)
I don't do JS so can't help you there, sorry (I'm a PHP guy too ;-)
We've got an intranet which normally serves all info/documents that appl to the whiole company (employee handbooks, minutes, etc...)
Most of these work by having the web server parse a folder and present the files to the user.
The problem in this case is that the latest folder is restricted to cerain users. As Kerberos is not currently an option, I was planning to side-step the issue and just insert a link which opens up a UNC path:
file://\Server\SecureFolder\
I've just found out that since XPSP2 this hasn't been possible with standard HTML/JS.
Does anyone know of a nother way this can be done? It's internal so I've got a lot of control over the webserver (but domain config changes will have to be justified)
I'm wondering if there's something like .Net or an ActiveX [shudder] solution or similar?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Seems the solution was to do it without Javascript and without the file://
The following works:
Link
A couple sites of mine recently got "hacked". Someone was able to add a line of JavaScript to the bottom of every page on the site.
The server is a Windows Server 2003, and has Cold Fusion 8 and MySQL 5.x installed and running.
Looking into the code on each page shows that none of the pages were modified. The JavaScript is not in the code files themselves. This leads me to believe it is an IIS problem, but I am unsure and cannot find anything that would be able to do this within IIS.
The JavaScript being added redirects a user to another page only when they come from Google, or at least it appears to work this way.
Any help on how someone was able to accomplish this as well as removing it would be greatly appreciated.
Another way to word the question thanks to #Jeffrey Hantin
How do you systematically modify output from IIS without modifying individual pages?
EDIT: A bit more testing has shown that only the .cfm pages add the extra javascript. Added a new .cfm and the js was there but a .html did not have it.
Edit2: Turns out to have been a coldfusion problem after all. Somehow the pages OnRequestEnd.cfm were created on the sites and added that js.
Looks like someone exploited some latest Adobe CF vulnerabilities.
Please see these blog posts for details and try to search symptoms on your server:
Image upload
FCKEditor bug + this post
Hope this helps.
Turns out to have been a coldfusion problem after all. The page OnRequestEnd.cfm were created on the sites and added that js.
If you only want to use IIS to modify output, the ISAPI filter is probably the best answer. If you would like to use Coldfusion, you could utilize the application.cfc to modify output during certain parts of the request cycle or wrap all of your pages in a Custom Tag to consolidate the like portions of your page templates.
I have used both. In cases where my page headers and footers are all the same, the custom tag is fast and easy to use. To make changes to all the pages, you edit one custom tag file. In cases where I have a more complicated web application I'll use the application.cfc to store and insert common components where they are needed.
They might have guessed your password. You should change it immediately.
It's possible that an ISAPI filter is used to do this. I once used one myself to perform compression before IIS supported it natively.
In your specific situation, you may want to check for ISAPI filters you don't want installed. Of course, if your server has been compromised, you will likely be better off rebuilding from a known good image rather than trying to fix it in situ.
I'm tyring to get phonegap up and running on blackberry storm (9530 simulator). I had been testing my webapp from withing BB's built in browser, and it was looking ok, but then it totally bit once I tried to look at the some code from within phonegap, even though I was pointing phonegap to the same url (I hadn't yet gotten to the point of running code locally on the device).
I tried a test case on google and got similiar results. see below. I suspect that I'm missing something basic here. I would have expect both images to be nearly identical.
Browser
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530WebGoogle.jpg
Phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530PgGoogle.jpg
[Update]
To shed some light on what is happening, I ran the browser and the embedded browser (phonegap) against the W3 mobile web acid test: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobile-test/
I definitely notice differences between the two, but I don't yet know the 'why' and the 'how-to-address'.
Acid via built-in browser
(source: eleganttechnologies.com)
BTW - I ran this earlier today and got a couple more green square than just now.
Acid via browser embedded into phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBb9530PgAcid.jpg
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about phonegap, but have a pretty good theory. By default the embedded browser control on BlackBerry uses an older version of the rendering engine than the BlackBerry browser itself does.
At the BlackBerry developer conference last year, a talk was given about this, and there's an undocumented option to use the newer rendering engine. \
The option ID is 17000 (yes, a magic number, which could change, use at your own risk etc), and should be set to true. Not sure how you'd pass this option through phonegap (I'm not familiar with the toolkit) but using the BlackBerry APIs it's something like:
BrowserContent content;
...
content.getRenderingOptions().setProperty(RenderingOptions.CORE_OPTIONS_GUID, 17000, true);
I don't know the specifics of the browsers you are using, but I do know that most of the big sites will detect your OS + browser combination to decide what HTML to show you.
If Google is seeing a different user agent, you might get a generic mobile version of the HTML instead os the Blackberry specific HTML you get for the built in browser.
If you have access to a web server, try hitting it with both browser setups and see if there is any difference in the log file. That might tell you something interesting.
As we can see in your Acid tests...
One browser (the built-in one) is reporting correctly as a BlackBerry9530, and the other (phonegap) is not presenting the user-agent ["Testing with ."].
In this case, Google is providing you with the default view of their homepage, whereas when you are reporting yourself as a BlackBerry device, you will get the BlackBerry specific rendering.
By the sounds of things, using phonegap is removing the default user-agent (most probably because it's not recognising your device). As phonegap is open-source, the best bet is to get in there, and debug it and find out what happens with the user-agent when the http requests leave the device and track it back from there.
Maybe one browser has capabilities that another one does not?
Hm. By looking at the screenshot I would say that the second page is probably missing some resources. It may be missing some images, scripts and the CSS files, which would explain different l&f. Knowing how Blackberry Browser Field API works, I would guess that the implementation that uses the BrowserField was not done correctly. Just my guess. In addition to that, when the browser field is initialized the caller needs to configure it properly by enabling the appropriate browser features - scripts, styles etc. Again, the API is done in a very weird way, I have gotten myself into this trap once. When setting the options, you cannot just create one mask (like CSS | WML | SCRIPT) and make one call. Options are numeric and, I believe, non-overlapping - but you still need to call the API for setting each option independently.
Also the way asynchronous loading of the resources for BrowserField takes time to understand.
Just my $0.02.