Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Friend bought me her iPad complaining that links to websites fail with:
>
> "Your browser is no longer supported".
>
> Details of iPad:
> Description: = Apple iPad Mini 2
> Model Number: = ME277B/A
> Version = iOS 12.5.7
>
> It says it is up to date.
>
> (But my own Apple iPad Air 2 : model A1567is at iOS 15.7.7)
>
> The website that fails is of the form:
>
> https://<name>.wixsite.com/<name>/
>
> ... so is this a failure of the site builder?
>
> Can I force her iPad to get a more modern version of iOS?
>
> Or is there a more modern browser that will work on it?

There is iCab mobile which apparently allows useragent switching. It costs
£2.99, but could be worth a try? Is also compatible with ios 12..

nospam wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> Technology, sure. Principals?
>
> unlike you, he had several.

No, he had principles ...

--
Graham J

On 18/07/2023 08:04, Graham J wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> Technology, sure. Principals?
>>
>> unlike you, he had several.
>
> No, he had principles ...

Good catch! :-D

Am 18.07.23 um 08:43 schrieb Chris:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <u94c00$1bqb9$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> ... so is this a failure of the site builder?
>>>>
>>>> it's not a failure.
>>>
>>> If course it is. Writing websites for specific browsers is contrary to the
>>> open web.
>>
>> they're not writing for specific browsers.
>
> You know that explicitly how?

You claimed that. You are obliged to deliver the proof.

--
Prudentia potentia est

In article <u95c9k$1ihuq$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> All you need to read a standard website is a standard browser.
> >> Browser checking is just bullshit.
> >
> > if all you want is a generic site with minimal functionality, sure.
>
> Which is what these out-of-the-box wix sites are.

nope.

their browser system requirements page states that ios 14/safari 14 is
required.

<https://support.wix.com/en/article/supported-browsers>
Supported operating systems on iPads and tablets:
€ iPads: iOS 14 and above
€ Android: 9.0 and above

what's amusing is that page did not load properly safari 16 desktop,
giving a 404 error, quite possibly due to the content blocking i use.
disabling javascript remedied the issue, which says a lot about how
shitty such sites actually are.

> > some web developers want to take advantage of the latest technologies
> > because it makes for better web sites and also is less work to do it.
> >
> >> You can guarantee if you could change the User Agent string the page would
> >> work just fine.
> >
> > there is no such guarantee.
>
> Sure there is. That's how HTML/CSS/JS works; there's always some fallback.
> It may not look pretty.

no there isn't.

if a site wants a more recent browser, changing the user agent is not
going to help at all.

you might be able to fake the version check, but then stuff will start
to break because it's relying on features or security that's not
actually there.

> > that won't work if the site requires functionality not available in the
> > browser.
>
> I can see you handwaving from here.

there is no handwaving.

you're wrong. again.

In article <u95brq$1iglp$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>> Tim Berners-Lee would be turning in his grave if he weren't still
> >>>> alive.
> >>>
> >>> no he wouldn't. he's glad technology continues to advance, well beyond
> >>> what he developed 30 years ago.
> >>
> >> Technology, sure. Principals?
> >
> > unlike you, he had several.
>
> why the need to be rude?

nobody is being rude.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
>...Writing websites for specific browsers is contrary to the
> open web. All you need to read a standard website is a standard browser.
> Browser checking is just bullshit.
>
> You can guarantee if you could change the User Agent string the page would
> work just fine.
>
> > supporting older browsers is not worth the effort since there aren't
> > very many people still using them, and more importantly, they lack
> > security measures needed and useful features.
>
> Then they shouldn't write browser-specific websites.

I agree, 100%.

The core of every website should be browser-independent so that everyone
can read it.

In general websites can be classed as 'information' or 'entertainment',
there is no excuse whatever for information websites to be
browser-dependent. If users want the latest entertainments gimmicks
they will buy the latest entertainment software but those who don't
should not be excluded from other websites.

To compound the error, some template websites have hidden messages to
the user to the effect that "Your computer isn't good enough for our
website". My response to that is "Then stuff your website, I'll spend
my money somewhere else". When I have contacted firms whose websites do
that, they have been most surprised and had no idea it was happening -
but they have all said they can't do anything about it.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 18/07/2023 03:02, Sn!pe wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <mpro.rxyw7i004gnkb0157.fred@[127.0.0.1]>,
>> <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Tim Berners-Lee would be turning in his grave if he weren't still
>>>>> alive.
>>>>
>>>> no he wouldn't. he's glad technology continues to advance, well beyond
>>>> what he developed 30 years ago.
>>>
>>> Technology, sure. Principals?
>>
>> unlike you, he had several.
>
> FWIW early HTML had its roots in pen-and-paper programmed learning,
> such as I was taught with on my initial BBC engineering course in 1968.

TO or TA?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Am 18.07.23 um 10:26 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
> I agree, 100%.
>
> The core of every website should be browser-independent so that everyone
> can read it.
>
> In general websites can be classed as 'information' or 'entertainment',
> there is no excuse whatever for information websites to be
> browser-dependent.

I have never encounterd anything else after the demise of the Internet
Exploder.

--
Prudentia potentia est

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 18.07.23 um 10:26 schrieb Liz Tuddenham:
>> I agree, 100%.
>>
>> The core of every website should be browser-independent so that everyone
>> can read it.
>>
>> In general websites can be classed as 'information' or 'entertainment',
>> there is no excuse whatever for information websites to be
>> browser-dependent.
>
> I have never encounterd anything else after the demise of the Internet
> Exploder.

Its replacement - Edge - is Chromium based which may explain things. IE was
originally based on Mosaic which I seem to remember using probably 20+
years ago.

--
Cheers, Alan

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 17.07.23 um 23:13 schrieb Theo:
> > Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> >> That's very sad. The device is very clean and has been well looked
> >> after. The hardware has lots of life in it yet.
> >
> > Planned obsolescence, innit. Apple want you to buy something newer.
>
> That is not even half the truth and you know that. Just FUD.

So why doesn't Apple allow unlocking the bootloader so devices they decide
are end of life can be repurposed running alternative software?
If the hardware is perfectly fine, why the arbitrary cutoff date?

Other manufacturers (eg Google) do it, so why not Apple? Even Apple allow
it for Macs. If the answer is 'security', this wouldn't compromise it -
bootloader unlocking an Android device involves wiping it, so there is no
user data to be attacked.

What answer would there be except that Apple wants you to buy a new device
instead?

Theo

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 18/07/2023 03:02, Sn!pe wrote:
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mpro.rxyw7i004gnkb0157.fred@[127.0.0.1]>,
> >> <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Tim Berners-Lee would be turning in his grave if he weren't still
> >>>>> alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> no he wouldn't. he's glad technology continues to advance, well beyond
> >>>> what he developed 30 years ago.
> >>>
> >>> Technology, sure. Principals?
> >>
> >> unlike you, he had several.
> >
> > FWIW early HTML had its roots in pen-and-paper programmed learning,
> > such as I was taught with on my initial BBC engineering course in 1968.
>
> TO or TA?

I was on TA28 en route to Skelton SW transmitting station.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <u95c9k$1ihuq$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> All you need to read a standard website is a standard browser.
>>>> Browser checking is just bullshit.
>>>
>>> if all you want is a generic site with minimal functionality, sure.
>>
>> Which is what these out-of-the-box wix sites are.
>
> nope.
>
> their browser system requirements page states that ios 14/safari 14 is
> required.

So they *are* writing for specific browsers, which you denied upthread.

> <https://support.wix.com/en/article/supported-browsers>
> Supported operating systems on iPads and tablets:
> € iPads: iOS 14 and above
> € Android: 9.0 and above
>
> what's amusing is that page did not load properly safari 16 desktop,
> giving a 404 error, quite possibly due to the content blocking i use.
> disabling javascript remedied the issue, which says a lot about how
> shitty such sites actually are.

Which is exactly my point. It's sloppy practise to target specific browsers
when there's an actual standard. You end up making false requirements.
Target the standard and you're fine.

>>> some web developers want to take advantage of the latest technologies
>>> because it makes for better web sites and also is less work to do it.
>>>
>>>> You can guarantee if you could change the User Agent string the page would
>>>> work just fine.
>>>
>>> there is no such guarantee.
>>
>> Sure there is. That's how HTML/CSS/JS works; there's always some fallback.
>> It may not look pretty.
>
> no there isn't.
>
> if a site wants a more recent browser, changing the user agent is not
> going to help at all.
>
> you might be able to fake the version check, but then stuff will start
> to break because it's relying on features or security that's not
> actually there.

Again you're contradicting yourself. Just above you mentioned toggling js
to get things working.

A properly designed website will still perform the basic functionality
without all the bells and whistles, but of course that puts these providers
out of business because the sites won't need tinkering with to keep
working.

>>> that won't work if the site requires functionality not available in the
>>> browser.
>>
>> I can see you handwaving from here.
>
> there is no handwaving.
>
> you're wrong. again.

lol. Hypocrite.

In message <170720232129430519%nospam@nospam.invalid>
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mpro.rxyw7i004gnkb0157.fred@[127.0.0.1]>, <fred@[127.0.0.1]>
> wrote:
>
> > > > Tim Berners-Lee would be turning in his grave if he weren't still
> > > > alive.
> > >
> > > no he wouldn't. he's glad technology continues to advance, well
> > > beyond what he developed 30 years ago.
> >
> > Technology, sure. Principals?
>
> unlike you, he had several.

Hmm, OK.

For clarity, by principal (not principle) I was referring to the reason
for creating the WWW in the first place rather than anything to do with
morality.

On 17/07/2023 18:48, Graham J wrote:
> Friend bought me her iPad complaining that links to websites fail with:
>
> "Your browser is no longer supported".
>
> Details of iPad:
> Description:    = Apple iPad Mini 2
> Model Number:    = ME277B/A
> Version        = iOS 12.5.7
>
> It says it is up to date.
>
> (But my own Apple iPad Air 2 : model A1567is at iOS 15.7.7)
>
> The website that fails is of the form:
>
> https://<name>.wixsite.com/<name>/
>
> ... so is this a failure of the site builder?
>
> Can I force her iPad to get a more modern version of iOS?
>
> Or is there a more modern browser that will work on it?
>
> TIA
>
>
I assume you've tried a variety of browsers?

David Kennedy wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 18:48, Graham J wrote:
>> Friend bought me her iPad complaining that links to websites fail with:
>>
>> "Your browser is no longer supported".
>>
>> Details of iPad:
>> Description:    = Apple iPad Mini 2
>> Model Number:    = ME277B/A
>> Version        = iOS 12.5.7
>>
>> It says it is up to date.
>>
>> (But my own Apple iPad Air 2 : model A1567is at iOS 15.7.7)
>>
>> The website that fails is of the form:
>>
>> https://<name>.wixsite.com/<name>/
>>
>> ... so is this a failure of the site builder?
>>
>> Can I force her iPad to get a more modern version of iOS?
>>
>> Or is there a more modern browser that will work on it?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>>
> I assume you've tried a variety of browsers?

Yes. Have tried

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/alook-browser-8x-speed/id1261944766

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/maxthon-browser/id541052011

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/perfect-browser-ad-blocker/id1360915927

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/perfect-browser-ad-blocker/id1360915927

<https://www.brave.com>

Also: Firefox, Chrome, and DuckDuckGo

All require an OS more modern than 12.5.7

Evidently they are all wrappers around Safari ...

--
Graham J

In article <u966ro$1lvfv$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>> All you need to read a standard website is a standard browser.
> >>>> Browser checking is just bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> if all you want is a generic site with minimal functionality, sure.
> >>
> >> Which is what these out-of-the-box wix sites are.
> >
> > nope.
> >
> > their browser system requirements page states that ios 14/safari 14 is
> > required.
>
> So they *are* writing for specific browsers, which you denied upthread.

nope. what they're doing is writing for specific functionality found in
more recent systems and browsers, which nearly everyone uses.

you can use any browser you want that meets those requirements.

according to the link below, 99.5% of ios users are using ios 15 or
later. that means almost nobody finds this requirement to be a problem.

<https://telemetrydeck.com/blog/ios16-market-share-03-23/?ref=creativebr
ew>

it's no different for apps that require a certain version of ios, mac
os or windows, or require specific hardware features.

for example, if an app uses a new feature in ios 16 that doesn't exist
in earlier versions, then that app won't work in ios 15 or earlier. ios
16 will be the minimum requirement, and anyone with an older iphone
that can't run it, or chose not to upgrade to 16, will be unable to run
that app.

if an app uses a hardware feature found in some iphones but not all,
such as the lidar sensor in the pro models, then people with the
non-pro iphones won't be able to run that app.

nothing lasts forever.

this is not complicated.

> > <https://support.wix.com/en/article/supported-browsers>
> > Supported operating systems on iPads and tablets:
> > ? iPads: iOS 14 and above
> > ? Android: 9.0 and above
> >
> > what's amusing is that page did not load properly safari 16 desktop,
> > giving a 404 error, quite possibly due to the content blocking i use.
> > disabling javascript remedied the issue, which says a lot about how
> > shitty such sites actually are.
>
> Which is exactly my point.

actually no. the above issue is because their site is buggy, and quite
likely, any site based on their technology.

they do support safari 16 desktop, however, they probably never tested
it with content blockers, or they just don't care.

the page does load, but moments later, something in the javascript
causes it to re-render and the 404 to appear, with an explanation that
the page is only available in english, despite it being english all
along.

disabling javascript stops whatever it's trying to do, which means it
never gets to the point where an error is generated.

> It's sloppy practise to target specific browsers
> when there's an actual standard. You end up making false requirements.
> Target the standard and you're fine.

they're not targeting specific browsers and the standard evolves. if a
browser doesn't meet a recent version of the standard, then it won't
work.

> >>
> >> Sure there is. That's how HTML/CSS/JS works; there's always some fallback.
> >> It may not look pretty.
> >
> > no there isn't.
> >
> > if a site wants a more recent browser, changing the user agent is not
> > going to help at all.
> >
> > you might be able to fake the version check, but then stuff will start
> > to break because it's relying on features or security that's not
> > actually there.
>
> Again you're contradicting yourself. Just above you mentioned toggling js
> to get things working.

nope.

disabling javascript avoided a bug in a browser they officially support.

> A properly designed website will still perform the basic functionality
> without all the bells and whistles, but of course that puts these providers
> out of business because the sites won't need tinkering with to keep
> working.

nope.

one of the more common examples are financial and medical sites, who
want recent browsers for security. there is no 'fallback' possible, nor
is that a desirable option even if it was, as it would put users and
the providers at risk.

On 18/07/2023 12:03, Sn!pe wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 18/07/2023 03:02, Sn!pe wrote:
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <mpro.rxyw7i004gnkb0157.fred@[127.0.0.1]>,
>>>> <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim Berners-Lee would be turning in his grave if he weren't still
>>>>>>> alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no he wouldn't. he's glad technology continues to advance, well beyond
>>>>>> what he developed 30 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technology, sure. Principals?
>>>>
>>>> unlike you, he had several.
>>>
>>> FWIW early HTML had its roots in pen-and-paper programmed learning,
>>> such as I was taught with on my initial BBC engineering course in 1968.
>>
>> TO or TA?
>
> I was on TA28 en route to Skelton SW transmitting station.
>

I did my TO course the following April.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 18/07/2023 00:16, nospam wrote:
> In article <u94f45$1c4gl$1@dont-email.me>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>>> Or is there a more modern browser that will work on it?
>>
>> Probably not. I see some have mentioned alternative browsers, of which
>> there are a few available, but they all use the Apple browser engine to
>> operate, so it's unlikely any of them will be much different (if you can
>> even find one that will work - third party browsers are quite a recent
>> addition anyway).
>
> nope. third party browsers go back to the earliest versions of ios.
>
> what's changed recently is being able to set a different browser as a
> default.

My mistake, I'd d forgotten that bit.

> however, you're correct in that it likely won't make a difference if
> webkit (the browser engine) lacks the necessary functionality for the
> web site.

Seems so - I mean that if it is a base function of the browser, then
yes. I did wonder thougfh if some browsers might have been able to
workaround som of the issues. Although I suspect that's probably
restricted by complying with Apple guidelines.

--
Andy H

On 18/07/2023 18:45, Graham J wrote:
> David Kennedy wrote:
>> On 17/07/2023 18:48, Graham J wrote:
>>> Friend bought me her iPad complaining that links to websites fail with:
>>>
>>> "Your browser is no longer supported".
>>>
>>> Details of iPad:
>>> Description:    = Apple iPad Mini 2
>>> Model Number:    = ME277B/A
>>> Version        = iOS 12.5.7
>>>
>>> It says it is up to date.
>>>
>>> (But my own Apple iPad Air 2 : model A1567is at iOS 15.7.7)
>>>
>>> The website that fails is of the form:
>>>
>>> https://<name>.wixsite.com/<name>/
>>>
>>> ... so is this a failure of the site builder?
>>>
>>> Can I force her iPad to get a more modern version of iOS?
>>>
>>> Or is there a more modern browser that will work on it?
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>>
>> I assume you've tried a variety of browsers?
>
> Yes.  Have tried
>
> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/alook-browser-8x-speed/id1261944766
>
> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/maxthon-browser/id541052011
>
> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/perfect-browser-ad-blocker/id1360915927
>
> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/perfect-browser-ad-blocker/id1360915927
>
> <https://www.brave.com>
>
> Also: Firefox, Chrome, and DuckDuckGo
>
> All require an OS more modern than 12.5.7
>
> Evidently they are all wrappers around Safari ...
>
>
Well, firefox isn't a wrapper and you can get older versions from the Mozilla
website

In article <UW2dnb2lt7zGdyv5nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Evidently they are all wrappers around Safari ...
> >
> >
> Well, firefox isn't a wrapper and you can get older versions from the Mozilla
> website

not for ios.

ios browsers, including safari, use webkit for their rendering engine.

the features and user interface is what varies.

On 18/07/2023 21:10, nospam wrote:
> In article <UW2dnb2lt7zGdyv5nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
> Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Evidently they are all wrappers around Safari ...
>>>
>>>
>> Well, firefox isn't a wrapper and you can get older versions from the Mozilla
>> website
>
> not for ios.
>
> ios browsers, including safari, use webkit for their rendering engine.
>
> the features and user interface is what varies.
>

Ooops...

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> ...Writing websites for specific browsers is contrary to the
>> open web. All you need to read a standard website is a standard browser.
>> Browser checking is just bullshit.
>>
>> You can guarantee if you could change the User Agent string the page would
>> work just fine.
>>
>>> supporting older browsers is not worth the effort since there aren't
>>> very many people still using them, and more importantly, they lack
>>> security measures needed and useful features.
>>
>> Then they shouldn't write browser-specific websites.
>
> I agree, 100%.
>
> The core of every website should be browser-independent so that everyone
> can read it.
>
> In general websites can be classed as 'information' or 'entertainment',
> there is no excuse whatever for information websites to be
> browser-dependent. If users want the latest entertainments gimmicks
> they will buy the latest entertainment software but those who don't
> should not be excluded from other websites.

Exactly.

> To compound the error, some template websites have hidden messages to
> the user to the effect that "Your computer isn't good enough for our
> website". My response to that is "Then stuff your website, I'll spend
> my money somewhere else". When I have contacted firms whose websites do
> that, they have been most surprised and had no idea it was happening -
> but they have all said they can't do anything about it.

They could, but don't care enough.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> >>> FWIW early HTML had its roots in pen-and-paper programmed learning,
> >>> such as I was taught with on my initial BBC engineering course in 1968.
> >>
> >> TO or TA?
> >
> > I was on TA28 en route to Skelton SW transmitting station.
> >
>
> I did my TO course the following April.
>

The Beeb was a rather different organisation in those days, eh?
I had a great time at Wood Norton, it was my first time away from home.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 18/07/2023 23:09, Sn!pe wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> FWIW early HTML had its roots in pen-and-paper programmed learning,
>>>>> such as I was taught with on my initial BBC engineering course in 1968.
>>>>
>>>> TO or TA?
>>>
>>> I was on TA28 en route to Skelton SW transmitting station.
>>>
>>
>> I did my TO course the following April.
>>
>
> The Beeb was a rather different organisation in those days, eh?
> I had a great time at Wood Norton, it was my first time away from home.
>

Me too.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.