Three major browsers are about to hit version 100. Will websites cope?
- Reference: 1645120750
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/02/17/browsers_version_100_websites_bug/
- Source link:
The memory of the web industry is short. This has happened before: when Opera reached version 10 in 2009, it caused [3]problems , and just three years later, Firefox 10 faced [4]similar issues.
And it will happen again. Google is [5]planning to release Chrome 100 at the beginning of April, and Firefox 100 should [6]follow in May.
[7]
Google anticipates that there will be some issues, so ever since Chrome 96 it has [8]offered a facility to force the version number to 100: just go to chrome://flags and set #force-major-version-to-100 .
[9]
[10]
Then you can test it on [11]is-chrome-100-yet.glitch.me .
[12]Facebook is one bad Chrome extension away from another Cambridge Analytica scandal
[13]Emergency updates: Adobe, Chrome patch security bugs under active attack
[14]Google's Chrome OS Flex could revive old PCs, Macs
[15]Journalist won't be prosecuted for pressing 'view source'
Mozilla too foresees [16]issues and is [17]testing for them. Its [18]bug tracker still shows over 20 problematic sites.
And as Microsoft now uses a flavour of Chromium, this also affects [19]Edge and the company is [20]checking .
There is some [21]advice for web developers – instance check user-agents' version numbers as integers, not as [22]strings .
[23]
As Chrome will go first, the handful of remaining Firefox users will have another reason to feel smug – by the time Firefox's version number catches up, most sites should have fixed it. As Safari is only up to version 15, Apple users can feel smug too. No change there, then. ®
Get our [24]Tech Resources
[1] https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/97.0/releasenotes/
[3] https://maqentaer.com/devopera-static-backup/http/dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-ua-string-changes/index.html
[4] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/917917?db=5
[5] https://chromestatus.com/features/schedule
[6] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Calendar
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yg7TnDyDYSUXl5t9WMh5PwAAAME&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[8] https://developer.chrome.com/blog/force-major-version-to-100/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yg7TnDyDYSUXl5t9WMh5PwAAAME&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yg7TnDyDYSUXl5t9WMh5PwAAAME&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://is-chrome-100-yet.glitch.me/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/17/chrome_meta_token/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/16/adobe_chrome_patch/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/16/google_chrome_os/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/15/missouri_html_hacking/
[16] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2022/02/version-100-in-chrome-and-firefox/
[17] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/mozilla-tests-if-firefox-1000-user-agent-breaks-websites/
[18] https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/labels/version100
[19] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/web-platform/site-impacting-changes
[20] https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-testing-if-edge-v100-will-break-the-internet-by-adding-two-new-flags/
[21] https://www.otsukare.info/2021/04/20/ua-three-digits-get-ready
[22] https://miketaylr.com/posts/2021/03/firefox-version-520-works-in-slack.html
[23] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yg7TnDyDYSUXl5t9WMh5PwAAAME&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[24] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"There is some advice for web developers – instance check user-agents' version numbers as integers, not as strings."
...and preferably not as an 8-bit signed integer.
An 8 bit signed integer would work for a while (exactly 27 more versions of Chrome), just like a quick and dirty solution to 2 digit year dates was to consider that any date whose year was under 50 would in the 2000's and that from 50 onwards meant it was in the 1900's - it brought its own problems with it but got into numerous programs anyway (even on some Y2K 'solutions')
Here;s some better advice:- Don't check user-agents' version numbers.
What??? Webs...
... are all made from strings only... and web developers too....
Ubuntu was right... sort of.
Given releases occur monthly for Chrome with the occasional patch and Firefox isn't too far off, is there really any point in using anything other than say 2022.02.17 as a version number? It makes everything easy to understand and resolves the leading zeroes problem until the 10K bug bites us or interplanetary colonisation (and thus the need for a truly universal date/time format) necessitates change.
Re: Ubuntu was right... sort of.
Or stop changing the major version number for every point release. Software authors/publishers seem to have "version envy" and all want bigger numbers. I'm not sure exactly what they are compensating for, but it's probably something small and inconsequential.
Re: Ubuntu was right... sort of.
This. I fully expect Chrome to switch any day now to incrementing its version number 10 or 100 at a time, because "we've updated Chrome from version 98 to version 198" sounds so much more impressive, doesn't it, than "we've updated Chrome from version 98 to version 98.0.1".
Shortly followed by Firefox, because Mozilla seem determined to cater to those people who don't want Chrome, by making Firefox as Chrome-like as possible.
That last line is gold
"As Safari is only up to version 15, Apple users can feel smug too. No change there, then."
I would have added "No plusses either."
dont drop leading zeroes
00001 is better then 1
The real question!
Will it go to 110?!!!
Nigel signing off...
Re: The real question!
"Chrome" is so 80s.
They need to rename the browser to "Black".
And successive versions can be "Black", "Blacker", "How much more black can this be" and "None more black".
Re: The real question!
Ultimate Dark Mode:
“Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls that are labelled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up black to let you know you’ve done it."
D. Adams.
Re: The real question!
"Vantablack" ... has been bettered by now, but that anti-anti-anti-star hasn't been named yet.
Re: The real question!
You can't call it "black". Some twat will take offense on behalf of somebody else and... the sky will fall (according to social media).
Remember when web devs targeted web standards, not browser versions? Me neither.
If systems are having problems adding one to 99...
...what hope is there for AI?
Re: If systems are having problems adding one to 99...
Depends...is Artificial Intelligence > Natural Stupidity?
Meaninglessness
Meaningless version numbers are useless. All version numbers should be release date based. And when I say all, I'd include hardware as well.
Curiously, while Google Chrome is approaching 100 of goddess knows what, Google Android does it right. Android 12 is the twelfth yearly update and the just released the monthly (and user friendly named) February Security Update.
Re: Meaninglessness
No, that's not the best approach. It works if you have one set of releases and everyone uses one of those and ideally the latest one. It works less well if you have different styles of releases. Here are a few examples.
You have a program that gets updated from time to time. Sometimes, you make a big change that breaks the workflow. Maybe you charge users for that big update. Maybe you just want to let them postpone making the shift until they're more comfortable that early adopters didn't find it broken. You might release updates for both versions. If the version numbers look like 2.2.391 and 3.0.5, it's clear which one they'll use. If they look like 2022.02.16.15.30.1 and 2022.02.16.17.38.1, how do you know which you want?
You can also run into string problems. How much precision do you need in the date version numbers? Leading zeros or not? Do you separate the date components or keep them together like in the ISO format? What do you do for beta versions? The major.minor.patch format is usually shorter and clearer, even if one of the numbers gets large.
For real programmers the next version after 99 is 9A.
History repeating itself...
Microsoft had included version checks in all versions of Windows so that newer versions could taunt previous versions. Then they released Win8 & suddenly realized they had a problem. The next logical release would be "Win9" but they already HAD Win95 & Win98, so that obviously wouldn't work.
MS then skipped 9 & went straight to Win10, hoping the version check thing would still work. After all 10 is newer than 8, right?
Now we've got browsers about to hit 100+ versioning problems in the same vein as MS had with Windows. And yet folks seem surprised that "Who could have seen this coming?"
*FacePalmSighs*
Who wants to join me for a pint? Maybe we can drown the VoicesInOurHeads that keep ranting & raving about the idiots... =-/
Re: History repeating itself...
As I understood it, there's a lot of code around that pulled the Windows friendly version string and looked to see if the first character was '9', because 95 and 98 were pretty similar.
Two decades on, when they've dropped the names (95, 98, ME, XP, Vista...) and are just using version numbers...oh, hang on, what happens if the first character is a '9'?
Oh, well balls, that's not right!
How
is
decimal
digit
overflow
still
a
problem
If you think you are a good dev, and you wrote customer-facing code that is affected by this issue, then you are wrong. You should not assume that a number you don't control will fit in X number of digits, especially if you know that it is just going to increase over time. Why does anybody even need to say that?
If you are looking at a number encoded as a string, your number one goal in life should be to parse it to a numeric data type as quickly and cleanly as possible. If you don't know for sure that number will fit in one byte for as long as the universe still exists (or at least until next time you can recompile your code), then use 2 bytes (and so on for 2, 4, and 8). This is both obvious and not hard.
JavaScript's silent type conversions strike again.
If you are looking at a number encoded as a string, ...
... be sure that at some point in the future, marketeers will decide that un-numerical strings [1] are cooler, and start identifying browser versions that way instead :-)
[1] or possibly even emojis, or go the full Monty and use blockchains or NFTs :-)
Continuous Incrementation...
... / Continuous Deprecation