sparkers team mailing list archive
-
sparkers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00001
Re: Issue 108962 in chromium: Wrongly warns about "Flash plugin" being out-of-date, when it's lightspark, not Adobe's
-
To:
chromium@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
Didier Raboud <odyx@xxxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Tue, 3 Jan 2012 13:50:46 +0100
-
Cc:
Lightspark Developers <sparkers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
In-reply-to:
<2-12894118175357484238-15253402487603534290-chromium=googlecode.com@googlecode.com>
-
Organization:
Debian - The Universal OS
-
User-agent:
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-1-amd64; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
Le mardi, 3 janvier 2012 12.00:40, chromium@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> Updates:
> Cc: stuartmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Comment #2 on issue 108962 by bauerb@xxxxxxxxxxxx: Wrongly warns
> about "Flash plugin" being out-of-date, when it's lightspark, not Adobe's
> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=108962
>
> Hm. The problem is that Lightspark calls itself "Shockwave Flash" in the
> plug-in description, so we can't distinguish it from Adobe Flash from the
> description alone.
Sparkers: What is the reason behind lightspark mimicking the "Shockwave Flash"
identifier ? What would break if Lightspark would announce itself "Lightspark
Flash player" instead? Then it would "just" be a matter of filing bugs against
the mis-behaving browsers, right?
> We could either extend the plug-in matching logic to also take MIME types
> into account, or as a simpler but hackier solution recognize the 10.2.530
> version (Adobe Flash is at 10.3.x, where x << 530, so there probably won't
> be a version in that range).
Note: the "530" number is created from the 0.5.3 version number of Lightspark,
so basing any detection on that is most probably not future-proof.
--
OdyX (N.B. I'm didier.raboud@xxxxxxxxx too)