Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
Am 09/04/2013 10:47 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
http://browsershots.org/http://www.openoffice.org/download/
I'm not sure anyone else can read that. It might be tied to a cookie.
But I ran a test to render the download page on 135 browser/os
combinations. It returns a PNG screenshot for each rendering. I
looked for which combinations did not render the green download box.
There were 5 failures. Two I don't think we care about:
Dillo 3.0.2 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
and
Kazehakase 0.5.8 / Debian 6.0 (squeeze)
And 3 that we should care about:
MSIE 5.5 / Windows 2008 R2 (Server)
MSIE 6.0 / Windows 2008 R2 (Server)
MSIE 7.0 / Windows 2008 R2 (Server)
I don't agree here. Why do we have to support stone-old browsers? Because
they are available on a browser testing website? Come on. ;-)
I'm concerned with the error, since it it impacts the more modern IE 6 and 7.
Looking at visits to our website over the past month I see this many users:
IE 10 -- 857,499
IE 9 -- 250,591
IE 8 -- 420,215
IE 7 -- 69,914
IE 6 -- 27,172
IE 5.5 -- 69
So we're still getting nearly 100K visits/month from these older IE versions.
The 69 are not really impressive. But 27,000+ for MSIE 6 is surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_5
It's old, MS is no longer supporting it, so IMHO it's done. Nearly the same
for 6.0.
Right. But here is a common scenario. You need to reinstall Windows
on a machine. Say it is XP or Vista. Both are supported today, but
both have older browsers by default. Of course, the first thing you
do on a new machine is run the Windows Updates. But in parallel with
that you are downloading other software you need, Acrobat Reader, anti
virus, 7-Zip, Notepad++, etc., and Apache OpenOffice. So you might
end up with IE 8 in the end, after all the patches are applied. But
you start your work with an earlier version,
I would expect that these people first get the basics up-to-date, then
other applications.
The IE versions all give the same script error:
However, if all browsers show the same error then a fix could get back all 3
into life at the same time.
That makes sense.
Yes, let's concentrate on the error.
Line 330, Char 1, Code 0, Expected identifier, string or number
This is an odd place for an error, since that appears to be in the
middle of the commented out block for beta releases.
Any ideas?
Yes, if you search in the "index.html" which indeed doesn't make sense.
When looking into "download.js" then you are in the middle of the
"getFilesize()" function. But I've no idea what the problematic point could
be there.
I wonder if it could be
http://www.openoffice.org/download/release_matrix.js? Could it be a
coincidence that that file is exactly 329 lines long and the error is
claimed to be in line 330? Maybe that unnecessary comma at the end of
line 328 is the issue?
Hm, and what about "languages.js"? It has also a semicolon at the end
but the file has only 108 lines. In the "index.html" it will be imported
before the "release_matrix.js" (I don't know if this really the case)
but there is no hint for error.
Anyway, let's try. In the test area:
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/index.html
http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/download/test/other.html
I've committed the deletion of the characters in both files. I think we
need to wait another 24h until we are allowed to use Browsershots.org
again, right? - At least this is my experience.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
