Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
Am 09/09/2013 08:50 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/09/2013 07:50 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/06/2013 03:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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. Ah, good catch. I've published the website, so you can test with the real webpage. I cross my fingers. The latest versions works OK on the older I.E.'s on browsershots.org. I also found this online tool for checking JavaSc
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
Am 09/09/2013 07:50 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/06/2013 03:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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. Ah, good catch. I've published the website, so you can test with the real webpage. I cross my fingers. The latest versions works OK on the older I.E.'s on browsershots.org. I also found this online tool for checking JavaScript: http://www.javascriptlint.com/online_lint.php Thanks for the link. Really a handy, fast and helpful tool
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 09/09/2013 07:50 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >>> >>> Am 09/06/2013 03:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > > > Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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.
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 09/06/2013 03:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >>> >>> Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > > > Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) >> 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 restrictio
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
Am 09/06/2013 03:18 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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. Ah, good catch. I've published the website, so you can test with the real webpage. I cross my fingers. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: >>> >>> Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: >>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
Am 09/05/2013 10:20 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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. Thanks Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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, but we're blocked either way, because of robots.txt on staging: 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. -Rob > > 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
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
Am 09/05/2013 12:20 AM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus (OOo) 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. > 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, > >> 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. > >> 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? -Rob > 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
Re: Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
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. ;-) 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. 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. 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. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Another test of the download page on Browsershots.com
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) The IE versions all give the same script 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? -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
