<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Passpack + Chrome = Frustration</title>
	<atom:link href="http://funkjedi.com/technology/217-passpack-chrome-frustration/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://funkjedi.com/technology/217-passpack-chrome-frustration</link>
	<description>Making government official breath harder than Darth Vader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:49:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: funkjedi</title>
		<link>http://funkjedi.com/technology/217-passpack-chrome-frustration/comment-page-1#comment-16</link>
		<dc:creator>funkjedi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://funkjedi.com/?p=217#comment-16</guid>
		<description>Glad I was able help to get your eyeballs in the right part of the code to spot that IE6 bug. It&#039;s definately odd that your Chrome install works fine. I get these error&#039;s on all three of my computers. Maybe it&#039;s because I&#039;m using the version from the dev channel. Anyway I just saw the update you pushed out in main.83.js limiting the alerts to fire only once and all I can say is... THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad I was able help to get your eyeballs in the right part of the code to spot that IE6 bug. It&#8217;s definately odd that your Chrome install works fine. I get these error&#8217;s on all three of my computers. Maybe it&#8217;s because I&#8217;m using the version from the dev channel. Anyway I just saw the update you pushed out in main.83.js limiting the alerts to fire only once and all I can say is&#8230; THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francesco</title>
		<link>http://funkjedi.com/technology/217-passpack-chrome-frustration/comment-page-1#comment-15</link>
		<dc:creator>Francesco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:33:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://funkjedi.com/?p=217#comment-15</guid>
		<description>Tim,
Just so you know - you helped us kill two bugs with one stone!

Before today, when someone connected to Passpack, Internet Explorer 6 would throw up an alert about there being non-secure items in the page. We&#039;ve been trying to track down the cause for months now. Today, studying the history plugin I noticed that it prepends an iframe without source to the page body. That was the problem, and we&#039;ve now fixed it.

Thank you very very much.
Sincerely,
Francesco</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim,<br />
Just so you know &#8211; you helped us kill two bugs with one stone!</p>
<p>Before today, when someone connected to Passpack, Internet Explorer 6 would throw up an alert about there being non-secure items in the page. We&#8217;ve been trying to track down the cause for months now. Today, studying the history plugin I noticed that it prepends an iframe without source to the page body. That was the problem, and we&#8217;ve now fixed it.</p>
<p>Thank you very very much.<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Francesco</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francesco</title>
		<link>http://funkjedi.com/technology/217-passpack-chrome-frustration/comment-page-1#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>Francesco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://funkjedi.com/?p=217#comment-14</guid>
		<description>Hello Tim,
I am Francesco Sullo, the Passpack CTO. First - thank you very much for your post.

Yes, we&#039;re using the older version of the history plugin. Since it seemed to be working well with all browsers, we let it as is. What&#039;s strange is that Chrome is my preferred browser, and my Chrome doesn&#039;t produce the history error so it wasn&#039;t showing up in testing. Thanks for the heads up.

I studied the problem, and here&#039;s what I found. You correctly noticed that there is an inconcistency between the two reported lines. This is an error, though the second shoud be:

 var m = $.browser.netscape ? 1 : $.browser.msie ? 4 : 8;

I simplified it now, removing the Netscape condition since Netscape now is Mozilla-based. This, however, didn&#039;t resolve the history problem which actually depends on the previous line:

var hh = parseInt(h);

Changing it as follows seems to fix the error:

var hh = parseInt(h,10);

When you don&#039;t specify the numeric base in the parseInt call, Javascript should consider 10 as the default. But in some browsers, where the number string is ambiguous, I noticed the string value is considered as an octal string instead of a decimal string. The result of the parseInt command produced surprising values.

Can you let me know if this has fixed the error for you?
Thanks again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Tim,<br />
I am Francesco Sullo, the Passpack CTO. First &#8211; thank you very much for your post.</p>
<p>Yes, we&#8217;re using the older version of the history plugin. Since it seemed to be working well with all browsers, we let it as is. What&#8217;s strange is that Chrome is my preferred browser, and my Chrome doesn&#8217;t produce the history error so it wasn&#8217;t showing up in testing. Thanks for the heads up.</p>
<p>I studied the problem, and here&#8217;s what I found. You correctly noticed that there is an inconcistency between the two reported lines. This is an error, though the second shoud be:</p>
<p> var m = $.browser.netscape ? 1 : $.browser.msie ? 4 : 8;</p>
<p>I simplified it now, removing the Netscape condition since Netscape now is Mozilla-based. This, however, didn&#8217;t resolve the history problem which actually depends on the previous line:</p>
<p>var hh = parseInt(h);</p>
<p>Changing it as follows seems to fix the error:</p>
<p>var hh = parseInt(h,10);</p>
<p>When you don&#8217;t specify the numeric base in the parseInt call, Javascript should consider 10 as the default. But in some browsers, where the number string is ambiguous, I noticed the string value is considered as an octal string instead of a decimal string. The result of the parseInt command produced surprising values.</p>
<p>Can you let me know if this has fixed the error for you?<br />
Thanks again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
