It appears Camino 2.1 is not compatible with iCloud.com
When I go there using Camino, a page pops up saying my browser is not supported.
Is there a fix coming soon?
Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
Moderator: Camino Developers
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: December 4th, 2011, 11:27 am
-
- Posts: 2777
- Joined: November 7th, 2002, 1:00 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
Sadly, Apple developers have decided to only support a limited number of browsers Not much we can do about it. As a user of iCloud, could you complain to Apple ?
- Uncle Asad
- Camino Developer
- Posts: 3957
- Joined: July 24th, 2004, 1:38 pm
- Location: بين العالمين
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
Note that if you spoof your user agent as Firefox 5, iCloud will let you get to the login screen; it's unclear whether everything will work properly or not, though.
As phiw13 said, this is all on Apple's end; sadly, there's nothing we can do about it, but iClould users can complain.
As phiw13 said, this is all on Apple's end; sadly, there's nothing we can do about it, but iClould users can complain.
Mac OS X 10.3.9 • PowerBook G4 17" 1.33 GHz | Mac OS X 10.5.x • MacBook Pro 15" 2.2 GHz
Snow7's Camino Forum FAQ Search the Forum Camino. Help Troubleshoot Camino
Snow7's Camino Forum FAQ Search the Forum Camino. Help Troubleshoot Camino
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: December 4th, 2011, 11:27 am
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
Thanks for the info. That's unfortunate as I visit iCloud.com often.
- dmnelson
- Posts: 104
- Joined: December 8th, 2007, 11:57 am
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
For what it's worth, I think it's actually looking for a certain version of Gecko, rather than failing to identify Camino in particular.
It doesn't complain if I go there in SeaMonkey, which is in sync with Firefox 8.
It doesn't complain if I go there in SeaMonkey, which is in sync with Firefox 8.
-
- Posts: 2777
- Joined: November 7th, 2002, 1:00 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
dmnelson wrote:For what it's worth, I think it's actually looking for a certain version of Gecko, rather than failing to identify Camino in particular.
It doesn't complain if I go there in SeaMonkey, which is in sync with Firefox 8.
No, iCloud is looking for 'Firefox/5' or higher in the UA string. If you look at the UA string of your SeaMonkey, you'll see something like this: (like Firefox/8)
You can check on this page, under navigator.userAgent
- dmnelson
- Posts: 104
- Joined: December 8th, 2007, 11:57 am
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
We're saying the same thing. Yes, Gecko-based browsers now include Firefox in their user-agent. The point was that it's checking for a version number, not simply the existence of the word "Firefox". Whether it's looking at the stated Firefox version or the Gecko version is beside the point.
- cflawson
- Posts: 4721
- Joined: December 26th, 2004, 2:54 pm
- Location: Flying over your house in a red, white, and blue jet
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
dmnelson wrote:Whether it's looking at the stated Firefox version or the Gecko version is beside the point.
No; that's *entirely* the point (and directly contradicts what you said above). Neither Seamonkey nor Camino should have to put anything referring to "Firefox" in the UA string in the first place, but Web authors are clearly idiots.
cl
-
- Posts: 2777
- Joined: November 7th, 2002, 1:00 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
What cl said. Camino and SeaMonkey have been forced to add that silly (like firefox/) to gain compatibility with the web at large. Nowadays yes, Firefox and Gecko are synonyms. There is only One Application That Matters, according to MoCo.
(Just try with SeaMonkey, remove the (like firefox/) through about:config; quite a few big sites break in small or bigger ways. cough, cough google.com)
(Just try with SeaMonkey, remove the (like firefox/) through about:config; quite a few big sites break in small or bigger ways. cough, cough google.com)
- dmnelson
- Posts: 104
- Joined: December 8th, 2007, 11:57 am
- Contact:
Re: Camino 2.1 and iCloud.com Compatibility
I'm not disagreeing with anything that either of you are saying but I don't think I have explained it very well. From the standpoint of how things should be in an ideal world of web development, you're absolutely right and I agree with you.
Should they be sniffing the Firefox version? No. But since Camino does identify a Gecko version as well as a related Firefox app version, they technically could sniff for either one. And they would get a valid, definitive answer either way. If they looked at the Gecko version instead the answer would still be that the software under the hood does not meet their requirements.
In my original message I said I thought it's looking for a specific version of Gecko rather than failing to identify Camino in particular. I still stand by that but I will clarify what I meant: I wasn't specifically trying to nitpick about whether it was identifying the Firefox portion of the user-agent vs the Gecko version. My intent was to express that the block comes not from a failure to identify Camino, but rather from a success in identifying that Camino is based on an unsupported version.
As I understand it, Camino lagging behind is a symptom of something that's not really Camino's fault anyway... it's because the organization's focus on Firefox has led it to drop embedding support from Gecko 4 and up, which put the skids on Camino's ability to update...
Should they be sniffing the Firefox version? No. But since Camino does identify a Gecko version as well as a related Firefox app version, they technically could sniff for either one. And they would get a valid, definitive answer either way. If they looked at the Gecko version instead the answer would still be that the software under the hood does not meet their requirements.
In my original message I said I thought it's looking for a specific version of Gecko rather than failing to identify Camino in particular. I still stand by that but I will clarify what I meant: I wasn't specifically trying to nitpick about whether it was identifying the Firefox portion of the user-agent vs the Gecko version. My intent was to express that the block comes not from a failure to identify Camino, but rather from a success in identifying that Camino is based on an unsupported version.
As I understand it, Camino lagging behind is a symptom of something that's not really Camino's fault anyway... it's because the organization's focus on Firefox has led it to drop embedding support from Gecko 4 and up, which put the skids on Camino's ability to update...