But, as we all know, the web is filled with old code. Early tests show that most recent libraries will do fine. If you're a web developer using an old UA parsing library, you should test to make sure it can deal with UA versions greater than or equal to 100. Go to chrome://flags/#force-major-version-to-100īefore starting, keep in mind several UA string failures have already been found. Search for "Firefox 100" and then check the "Firefox 100 User-Agent String" option.Ĭonfigure Chrome to report the major version as 100 Here's how to do this.Ĭonfigure Firefox Nightly to report the major version as 100 You can do this by setting up your early release browser to report the version as 100 and report any issues you come across. And, of course, your own company would appreciate making sure its website doesn't go up in smoke when the version 100 editions are released. If you want to help make this problem a non-issue-the reason why people thought Y2K wasn't that big a deal was because of all the efforts made beforehand to make sure it was properly fixed-both Google and Mozilla would welcome your help. Google's Chrome developers will decide on whether to resort to this backup option if things go badly wrong. So, for example, the important part might look like 99.101.4988.0. In this case the Chrome version UA string will use the following pattern. This time around our problem is that too many website programs can't deal with three-figure UAs. Then, the problem was that most programs of the late 90s and earlier couldn't deal with four-figure year dates. The most famous example is the still not quite dead yet Y2K problem. So, what's the problem here? It's an ancient one: Date format misconfigurations. The UA's format is:Īs this written typical examples of the latest release versions of browsers UAs are:Ĭhrome: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0 Win64 圆4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/.54 Safari/537.36įirefox: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh Intel Mac OS X 10.15 rv:96.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/96.0 Web developers use the UA in all kinds of ways with their server-side programs. JavaScript also uses it with the JavaScript erAgent. This is a string that browsers send in HTTP headers, so servers can identify the browser. If you don’t fancy Firefox, there are other Chromium-based alternatives available, including Brave-which builds ad blocking into the browser itself-Vivaldi and Edge.The best robot vacuum and mop combos (and if they're worth the money)Īll web browsers come with a User-Agent (UA). Thankfully, Firefox has confirmed it will maintain support for the blocking version of the WebRequest API in Manifest V3, which will keep more privacy-focused ad blocking extensions available for its users.įor any Chrome users looking to switch, there are online guides detailing how to move everything over to Firefox. The arrival of Manifest V3 will be a blow to Chrome users who like to use privacy focused ad blockers to improve their experience. He says Google is working with the developer community “to offer an extensions platform that’s incredibly secure and capable,” adding that the browser maker will “continue to announce new Manifest V3 capabilities in response to developer feedback.” Firefox confirms support for ad blockers “Extensions are some of the most powerful tools that people have to customize their Chrome browsing experience, so it’s critical that all uses continue to be possible with Manifest V3,” says David Li, product manager for Google Chrome. Manifest V3 is intended to protect less techy users of the Chrome browser, Google says. Google is defending the move to Manifest V3, saying the possible drop in functionality is worth it for the security benefits. SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Google defends Manifest V3 The Google Chrome changes-dubbed Manifest V3-have already led some users to flee to alternatives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |