Re: Warning - Firefox v4 not compatible with HMC 7.7.1

Chuck,

1) One possibility is that the code was incorrect before, but the earlier versions were more forgiving. Does the CPYTOIMPF CCSID mess ring a bell?

2) Even if it's the new version of the browser's fault, I think that we can agree that IE and FF are the the de facto standard in browsers:
Firefox is the leader with about 42%, IE and Chrome in the 24-26% range, Safari 4% and Opera 2.5%.

Source: <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Once the standard has changed, other vendors need to get up to speed and become compatible, even if "it's not the vendor's fault." A company the size of IBM has a responsibility to its clients to keep up with such changes. IMHO, being two years behind is unacceptable. IE8 was released on March 19, 2009. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Internet_Explorer_8

-mark


At 5/6/2011 04:13 PM, you wrote:

On Fri 05-May-2011 12:24 , Bryce Martin wrote:
> I think that it is ridiculous that IBM creates software that is
> stomped by a browser upgrade.... even IE 8... which has been out
> since when? March 19, 2009. That is right... OVER 2 YEARS AGO!!!!!
>
> It's sloppy at best, but negligent of its customers and products at
> worst. How do you not fix something browser based in over 2 years?
> My mind boggles when I see this crap from them... they are better
> than this, or at least they should be. Thank goodness I don't need
> to use an HMC, or might really be mad :D

As described... Seems to me that the browser would be considered to
be the problem since their upgraded code is no longer able to process
what apparently was being processed previously without any difficulty
before the upgrade.? That is to say, when a browser is upgraded and
then directed to the same link which is accessing\performing the same
un-upgraded code\actions that existed since before the browser was
upgraded, then how would the fault be the unchanged versus the changed
feature? Why would IBM be expected to ensure that every browser upgrade
was still properly rendering their code\output since a level already
verified to be supported? Should IBM ensure every release upgrade to a
5250 emulator should remain compatible with their previous version of
that non-IBM 5250 emulator?

While I suggested Rob should get a DCR or APAR to track, that is only
because the IBM response suggested they had submitted a "request to
development to get this repaired". I figured that response implied both
that IBM admitted some culpability and that a resolution to the request
could be tracked [since code changes would come only from one of those
two features, both of which have tracking identifiers].

Regards, Chuck