On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I don't know if that restriction is per client IP address or per host, > > > It's about the tested website that triggers the limit. It doesn't matter who > or which IP is requesting the test. > > >> but we're blocked either way, because of robots.txt on staging: > > > OK yes, the staging area. > > >> http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/robots.txt >> >> But if it is OK to publish those changes we should be able to run >> another test now. > > > Hm, I decided to publish the changes already yesterday. To bad that I've not > changed the links from staged to live, sorry. ;-( > > Please try again with the real webpages. >
Same errors. I think it is the trailing comma on the last entry in the array. I changed in it download/test/release_matrix.js and will test it again tomorrow. -Rob > Thanks > > > Marcus > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
