Talk:Safari (web browser)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Contents

Not Gecko

The non-use of Gecko seems tangential. Do we really need it? And even though a link is provided, the "bloat" explanation seems somewhat POV and/or speculative. For example, does the question of whether Gecko is or is not "well developed" need to be discussed here (I agree Gecko is good; but for some other page). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Another well developed open source layout engine Gecko (of the Mozilla browser) was not chosen. It was suggested that software bloating was probably one of the reasons [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talkcontribs) 19:30, 18 May 2005

How proprietary?

User:Rhobite seems to have an axe to grind about calling Safari "proprietary" in the lead sentence. S/he suggested this was a better parallel with the IE article. Grammatically, that much is true, but there's no need for each web browser's page to follow the same grammatical template (and other browsers' pages start slightly differently from either).

As to the proprietary issue, it's really just explained better in the "History and development" section. The single word characterization is not particularly accurate. Likewise, I would take out an initial comment that described Safari as Free Software in a blanket way. In fact, Safari has some free elements (the rendering engine, Webkit, etc); and it has some proprietary elements (the GUI). My understanding is that there is no analogous Free Software portion of IE; but I haven't contributed to the IE article, and if I'm wrong, that fact belongs over there, not here.

Overall though, getting exactly the right word or two describing the license status need not occur in the first sentence. It's better left in the section that explains this in more detail. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:39, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

I have an axe to grind about the double standards on Wikipedia. Safari and IE are both proprietary software, and it isn't a gray area thing. I can't compile Safari, I can't modify it, and I can't redistribute it. It's true that some of the libraries are open source, but I don't feel that this makes Safari "less proprietary" than IE. Although IE is entirely closed-source, there is an extensive API for customizing and extending the browser (and installing annoying weather toolbars, heh).
My main point is that our bias shows through here. Attempts to remove the word "proprietary" from the IE article have been reverted, and attempts to add the word "proprietary" to the Safari article have also been reverted. All I want to do is illustrate the double standard, the pervasive anti-Microsoft bias around here. Rhobite 03:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Axe or not, the facts Rhobite purports are simply not true. Whatever "point" s/he wants to make is counter to WP policy (Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). The rendering engine for IE is not, AFAIK, free software. The rendering engine for Safari is free software. We all agree that Safari is neither wholly free nor entirely proprietary, but rather some mixture. I think no part of IE is similarly free (but I could be wrong; if so, put that fact in the IE article, not here).
The meaning of Free Software is quite clear. And some significant percentage of the code in Safari qualifies. Obviously, since I haven't seen the proprietary parts, I can't say if that's 50% free, or 80% free, or 90% free (though I read about someone who made an extremely Safari-like wrapper around Webcore with fairly small effort; but I have not investigated that project in any detail). It is equally clear that an open API, while perhaps desirable as well, does not Free Software make (though perhaps you could edit the IE article to describe it as "proprietary software with an open API"; assuming such is true). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:18, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
The facts I "purport" are not true? Please point me to where I can download the GUI to Safari, then. Please inform me when Safari will be ported and included with Debian. Thanks in advance. Rhobite 04:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Cocoa development? The GUI is in a bunch of files that end with the extension ".nib". One way to access them is by right-clicking on the Safari icon and selecting "Show Package Contents". Nothing stops you from doing whatever you want with the GUI. Safari was updated with the latest update that was released with 10.4.x so that may include a copy of them. AlistairMcMillan 05:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Look, I know ranting about a point is fun. But this is just utterly silly. Your claim makes about as much sense as wanting to insert the description "proprietary" into the WP pages on the Red Hat or Suse Linux distributions. Heck, for that matter into the desciption of the Debian distribution (which includes a non-free directory right there on the ISO image). FWIW, I'm pretty sure that FreeBSD includes no non-free binaries on its standard ISO images. Ubuntu seems pretty strictly free, though they might have thrown in some non-free driver of the like. In real life, a lot of software combines free and non-free portions.
If it were up to me, Apple would open the source for the non-free parts of Safari. And MS would open source all of IE. And Novell would open source the few non-free parts of Suse (actually, they've made steps in that direction). For the most part, it's not up to me; and I'm not going to edit WP pages to make some trite and hyper-didactic point about non-free parts of mostly free software. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:42, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
Hey, take a look at this. It's a list of software based on Webkit. See where it says that Safari is open source? Neither do I! Actually, Safari is "commercial" software according to OpenDarwin (and they should know, many of them helped write it). Got a Mac? Go click Help->License in Safari. What's that you see? Pages of fine print, and it ain't the LGPL. Let's read some quotes from "Apple Computer, Inc. Software License Agreement for SAFARI":
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time.
This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof
"Mostly free", indeed. Safari is a web browser. I'm not talking about Webkit, I'm not talking about KHTML. Those are just libraries. The browser is proprietary and closed-source. Rhobite 05:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Two things. The guy that wrote that page on OpenDarwin (Dstorey) doesn't work for Apple. And ownership has nothing to do with it. If I write a piece of "free software" and release it under the GPL I still own it, so whether it is completely owned by Apple or not is completely irrelevant. AlistairMcMillan 05:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I have clarified my statement. Your responses avoid my main point though, which is that Apple's license confirms that Safari is indeed proprietary software. Agreed? Rhobite 06:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agree? Nope. You keep referring to the proprietary part, the GUI. A web browser is a lot more than just a GUI. You can't just discount the part that renders pages, etc. Safari is partially proprietary and partially free. BTW You seem to be attaching your own POV to the phrases "free software" and "proprietary". Why is describing Internet Explorer as a proprietary piece of software a negative thing? AlistairMcMillan 07:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also I'm assuming you know that if you click on Help->Acknowledgment, Safari will pop open a copy of the GPL? AlistairMcMillan 07:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the LGPL. But AlistiarMcMillion is 100% correct that Safari is "part free software and part proprietary"... just like the Debian GNU/Linux distribution is :-). Just like all-proprietary IE is not. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:32, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

Wide Use on University Campuses?

That seems to be the case in Colorado. Its the default browser on public, student & faculty computers at a few major campuses here (on hundreds, if not thousands of terminals). Is this a nationwide pattern? If so its worthy of mention in the article.

70.209.138.36 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Free software?

Sorry don't have much time to check this stuff up, but IIRC Safari itself is not free software... {{subst:Unsigned|131.170.97.53]] 03:17, 18 February 2003

It is, in fact. [2] -- Revived 23:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looks to me that the it is just about as free as Internet Explorer (assuming you want the new pop-up blocker and security stuff), that is you upgrade OS X so you can get a better browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.9.53 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 18 January 2005
i.e. not Free at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.46.112 (talkcontribs) 17:57, 18 October 2005
No. Free software is that one that can be freely modified, redistributed, etc. Since source code of Safari is not freely available, it can't be a free software. --minghong 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Safari itself is not free software, however WebCore based on KHTML, the main library that Safari uses, is free software. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that if it's code can be copied etc it is open source. --MacMad 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, It's not freeware or Shareware, It's just a browser you can download, install, and use all you want for FREE. It's copyrighted and protected but still free to use.

Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be much written here by people with confusion over the use of terms. I hope the following may help to clarify matters.

(1) 'Freeware' is software which you are permitted to use without payment.

(2) 'Free software' is software in which the source code is made publicly available under a license allowing you to make further use of the code, but only in ways which ensure that all further developments of it continue to be free. You are not allowed, for example, to take a chunk of free source code, incorporate it in a program of your own, and then sell that program as closed source software.

(3) 'Open source software' is software in which the source code is publicly available, so that you can use and modify the source code. The exact terms on which source code is made available vary, which makes the distinction between open source and free software not always very clear. However, often with open source software you are free to incorporate code from open source software in further software which is not open source. This is not so with free software.

As far as Safari is concerned, anyone is very free to download and use it without payment, so it is freeware. However, the source code is not free for anyone to use, so it is not open source or free software. At least, not all of it is.

JamesBWatson 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Icon

I wonder do we really want to the icon of Safari in the article? -- Taku 01:26 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we? - Daniel Pritchard 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but my guess is that Taku isn't going to be coming back 3 years later to answer that question ;) —bbatsell ¿? 08:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Didn't notice. Wouldn't it be funny if he did, though? -- Daniel Pritchard 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, We do need it, if you check any article on any computer application, you will see a screenshot, it's logo and it's Desktop Icon at the top right. Masterhand10(Talk)(Contributions) 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Desktop icon?Wiki3857 04:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism about Safari's new HTML elements

I just recently (sep 2005) found out that the Safari team has inplemented some proprietary HTML elements and values, primarily for use with Safari 2's RSS reader and the dashboard application, wich uses WebCore. I saw some discussions and blogentries about it ([3], [4]).

One example of Safari-only HTML can be found on Apples Dashboard widget site, [5]. If you use a newer Safari, you can see a search field on the page that is styled like the one in iTunes. This is <input type="search">. It seems that the page uses serverside browsersniffing to feed this to Safari only. Of course, the input-search-element doesn't validate at W3C.

I beleive this is of interest, since Safari is doing something that IE and NS did a while ago - inventing their own nonstandard HTML-elements, like marquee and blink. I think this should be adressed in the Safari article since other browsers has received a lot of criticism about this, but few users and even few developers seems to know about Safaris home-made tags.

Has anyone any more info on these tags/values? Anyone knows wether Apple implemented a special namespace or DTD? I know only from one year old blog entries...

// s4ndp4pper 20050911

I'm not really sure how this ended up in the end, but you do get that this is different from Microsoft/Netscape's actions in the past? Apple publicly announced they wanted to add tags and asked for comments, which is what you linked to above, before releasing a product that used their new tags. Anyway probably a good idea to find out how this ended up and add it to either the Safari page, the WebCore page or the WebKit page. AlistairMcMillan 21:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just noticed by accident that the <canvas> element is available in Firefox 1.5 and is part of the Web Applications 1.0 working draft. [6] AlistairMcMillan 05:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, Apple has been very open about their intentions and has listened to the likes of Eric Meyer, and that's a very humble move. But there was a discussion about wether these functions should use it's own namespace or DTD to work, like IBM did with their own XHTML. I saw the line "They (the Safari team) should hang their heads in shame" a couple of times in the blogs... My point is that is a controversial move (to some), and although it's not very probable, some web developers could start making Safari-only webpage features. (Well OK, it's just a searchfield and that canvas thingy etc...)
Myself, I think it's great that HTML/XHTML evolves. // s4ndp4pper 20050912 10.58

Standards support

An anon recently added detail on Safari's Atom support. To me it seemed out of place, when we don't go into detail on Safari's support for any other standard. If no one else gets to it before me, I'll add a section on exactly which standards are supported some time soon. AlistairMcMillan 13:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Disappearing underlining in Safari

(I apologize if this is an inappropriate place to ask, but...) Today, all of a sudden, the underlining for links disappeared when I viewed Wikipedia with Safari (unless the mouse cursor is over the link). Anybody with any ideas what happened and how I can reverse this? --Nlu 04:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I figured it out -- added a couple lines to my monobook.css file and that solved it. Still annoying -- why was this change made? --Nlu 06:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Disappearing "|" signs in category sections in Safari

Funny, since early today, if a wikipedia article is in 3 or more categories, some categories are shown blended together. I.E., Silence of the lambs' category section contains "Best Picture OscarHorror FilmsFilms based on novelsBest Actor Oscar" all in one line. Any idea why this is so? The html source looks correct, btw. Peter S. 15:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to break this up, but as the policy goes Wikipedia is not a discussion forum =) Please report this issue with Apple, or check with a relevant Macintosh message board. TDS (talkcontribs) 23:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot of Safari

should this screenshot be updated to correspond with the modern Wikipedia mainpage, also, is the screenshot of Safari 2.0? Furthermore, the current image is not high-quality as the buttons at the top-left are constrasted differently. BadCRC 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The image is simply displaying Wikipedia in a skin other than Monobook (the default) — you can check out the other skins in your preferences. However, be bold and feel free to upload a new screenshot that you think looks better :) Just make sure to abide by the fair use policy regarding the resolution of copyrighted images. --bbatsell « give me a ring » 19:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot should be of the Safari page on Wikipedia, for that sleek recursive look and feel. -- gstover, 2006 March 22

Nightly builds

Should there be more said about them? Perhaps something about nightshift which keeps the process simple? PaulC/T+ 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move (capitalization)

I suggest we move this page to Safari (Web browser), by reason that "Web" is an abbreviation of the proper noun "World Wide Web" and should correctly be capitalized. The Website article mentions some disagreement over the capitalization, but I think that article (and Web page) should be edited to consistently capitalize "Web" as well - after all, it's not just a World Wide Web, it's the World Wide Web! MFNickster 04:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that.
  • "Apache HTTP Server is a free software/open source HTTP web server for..." [7]
  • "WorldWideWeb was the world's first web browser and..." [8]
  • "Something Awful, sometimes abbreviated to SA, is a comedy web'site based..." [9]
They are only three examples, I could go on and on... Starting with a lower-case "w" seems more correct to me. AlistairMcMillan 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no shortage of examples of people failing to capitalize "Web" - what I'm looking for is a good reason that these aren't errors. You almost never hear someone talk about "a web" in the sense of a set of HTML pages or sites. Interestingly, Microsoft calls a set of pages "a web" in their FrontPage development software. MFNickster 18:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Version history?

Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, shouldn't the long version history information should probably be moved to a sister project? Or reformated to be more encyclopedic? By the time Safari hits v4.0, the article will be overrun with a giant spreadsheet. --Interiot 13:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much if anything to the article. All that's really needed is a paragraph on each of the major versions, including the date and version number of the most-recent update to that branch. -- Steven Fisher 05:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well since it was me who originally converted the version list to a table and obsessively/religiously filled it out, it seems appropriate that its me who should dial it back a bit. I've removed all the x.y.z released from the table, so we only cover the x.y releases. Hopefully this article is less... spreadsheety now. AlistairMcMillan 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I came to the article because I was interested in the version history so I find it does add to the article. In fact, I was interested in the release date of version 2.0.3, which isn't listed. There are ways in Wikipedia of collapsing and uncollapsing tables via show/hide links, so if space considerations are a concern, perhaps the article could use those. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumors of a Win32 version?

I've read this rumor on a number of sites. Is there any truth to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.98.179 (talkcontribs).

Apple's WebKit is ported to a number of platforms. You are probably thinking about Swift. (please sign, I could be answering a two years old question) Aahlborg 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
And, about 9 months later, the answer is "yes". :-) Guy Harris 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The version history now mentions "anecdotal evidence" that Safari runs on Windows 2000, but that citation is needed. I can only say that I'm typing this using Safari on Windows 2000. I don't know how one would go about creating a citation for that... (The user agent string, if anyone's interested, is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en) AppleWebKit/522.11.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Safari/522.11.3") Glenn W 09:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

the most advanced web browser ever on a portable device

http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/ " iPhone features a rich HTML email client and Safari — the most advanced web browser ever on a portable device — which automatically syncs bookmarks from your PC or Mac. Safari also includes built-in Google and Yahoo! search. iPhone is fully multi-tasking, so you can read a web page while downloading your email in the background over Wi-Fi or EDGE. "

Do we have any specs on the version of safari on the iphone? How does it beat Opera? Mathiastck 09:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Same way it beats Opera on the PC I'd wager -- slightly to not arguably at all. That said I'm using it to write this, and I have to agree with Apple's hype, it's noticably faster that Firefox, and I switched to that because it was faster than IE. But, no spell checking, so I won't be using it much over the next little while. Maury
It has spell checking on the Mac side, though that's more because of OSX than the browser itself. Perhaps a comparison between the PC and Mac versions would be in order. EVula // talk // // 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
A comparison would be nice. I'm curious to see what functions the Windows version is missing, and what could be added, post-installation. As it is, I'm missing a lot of functions that I'm used to on Firefox (some available to Firefox by default, some available through extensions). I'm especially interested to know if the rendering is any different. Glenn W 09:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of basic functionality the windows version seems very good. Basic rendering has proven flawless so far and the speed is just as impressive as the keynote claimed. However, as others have noted, the current lack of plugins makes it useful only for experimentation. It also lacks the sort of utilities for importing existing cookies and bookmarks (etc) that Firefox offers when first installed. A nice taste of things to come, I hope, as I really look forward to using the same browser on both platforms (I'm using Mac Safari to write this). Maury 12:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On one of the boards I post on, the leading theory (as far as I'm concerned) for WinSafari existence is the fact that Safari will be the iPhone's browser, and Apple wants people developing for it pronto. I think that's why they pushed it out without much existing plugin support; it'll come, but getting it to the point where people can develop iPhone-compataible websites is even more important. EVula // talk // // 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Win2k Support

Can we all agree that Win2K is not supported by Safari 3.0 Beta? Apple explicitly states it's not supported in their system requirements here. Yes it appears from outside evidence it may run on some Win2K systems, but that still doesn't change the fact it is unsupported. If you call Apple with problems they'll tell you the same thing. Only WinXP and Windows Vista are supported OS's and there is no evidence yet presented other then unverifiable claims to counter this fact. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange, I could have sworn I read somewhere (other than here) about Safari's 2k support. Hrm. I agree with your edits, though; we should definitely state what is officially supported, and rely on citations as evidence that it can run in any environment outside of that. EVula // talk // // 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've seen posts on Apple's own support boards by users stating that some have gotten it to work with Win2K. However we do mention that in the current edit of the article that Win2K works via anecdotal evidence. But officially there is no support. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
How should one go about providing citation for the anecdotal evidence, though? I for one have installed Safari on two Win2K machines, and both work fine. Glenn W 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a tech blog talking about Safari 3 working in Win2k, that'd probably work just fine. Preferably two, just to be safe. EVula // talk // // 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, those should work for anecdotal evidence if no reliable source can be found. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Would this and this work? They're not exactly blogs, but they're people talking about having Safari work under their Win2K machines. Glenn W 23:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say they suffice for putting back in the sentence about anecdotal W2K ability for Safari. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Skin

Something should be added about the skinnability of Safari. In fact I've made one by editing SafariResources.dll with reshacker. You can get it here [10] --Coolkid602006 04:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, so? Seriously. You can skin every application that way. DizzyTech (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Version issues

This article has serious issues with version numbers for the 3.0.x betas. For instance, it doesn't mention anything but the 3.0 beta for Mac OS X, and it gives the build number for 3.0.3 as 3.0.3 (522.15.5). On my PowerBook at least, the version number is 3.0.3 (522.12.1). I think this entire section (that is, the specific part of it that deals with the 3.0 betas) needs to be struck. Also, can we please lose the Infobox Software2 template here? The very last thing this article needs is more complexity (and less accuracy forced on us) by that template. --Steven Fisher 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have installed Safari 3.0.3 on my computer (running Vista), and the version number stated in the about dialog is 522.15.5 (I double-checked). Stephenchou0722 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it probably varies between Mac OS X and Windows. It might even be different between Intel Macs and PowerPC Macs. --Steven Fisher 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This User Agent Matrix at apple.com confirms that at least for Safari 3.0.2, there are different WebKit build numbers for OS X (522.11) vs. Windows (522.13.1) but no difference between Intel Mac and PPC Mac. --Georgeryp 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Safari 3.0.3 on Tiger (on a MacBook, so Intel—although I'm pretty sure that makes no odds) is also 522.12.1 for me. Nevalicori 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for now I've split the 3.0 beta stuff into a new subsection. My reasoning:

  1. The factual problems with the section are specific to this subsection. This clarifies that.
  2. It isn't clear to me that it would even be possible to cite sources for all this data, so I feel it's basically split this off and mark it as untrustworthy or strike it.
  3. The article doesn't keep this level of detail for specific versions for previous releases. The difference in detail level is odd.
  4. Given the previous point, it's quire likely that when the 3.0 final ships, this section will be collapsed into a single row on the Version history table (which will, then, be easy to source).

Let me know what you think. --Steven Fisher 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I agree with most of your reasoning although, I did find a developer.apple.com reference (see above) via webkit.org, which supports and corrects some of the information. In the long run, when 3.1(?) is widely adopted as 99% of users are updated automatically, this article's current level of granularity on the 3.0.n betas is probably overkill, at least for Wikipedia. However, I hate to say it but eventually, it would make sense to include the *major* iPhone/iPod Touch WebKit build numbers as well. Already there's a link (evotech.net) in the "External link" section which gives some of this information. --Georgeryp 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Downloading older versions?

Where can older versions of Safari be downloaded for use on OS X versions prior to 10.4.9? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.223 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Safari (web browser) article.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Google "Safari Discussion" and ask your question there. It will be a friendlier experience. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Percentage points

"For the month of May 2006, [Safari had] a usage share of 2.86%, [and] 4.59% as of April 2007, an increase of 1.33 percentage points...."

This exemplifies a common problem. To simplify matters, let's say the old usage share was 2.5% and the new usage share is 5%. Is that an increase of 2.5% or 100%?

The author was evidently aware of the problem and tried to avoid it by incorporating the phrase "percentage points," but that doesn't help; the "%" symbol already indicates "percentage points."

(I'm avoiding a related problem, of course: that of the actual numbers. The number of users may have quintupled while the usage share didn't even double, or vice versa.)

I might attempt to suggest a solution to this problem, but frankly, I'd rather solicit opinions about it. Unfree (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is explained well enough in our article on percentage points. Going from a 2% share up to a 5% share is a change of 3 percentage points. I would say that '%' stands for 'percent', not 'percentage points.' See the appropriate section of our percentage article to confirm this theory. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Acid2 on Windows XP SP2

Since there's no point to add the decscription of this to the article right now (it will be reverted), it's better to discuss it here. Safari 3.0.4 fails to pass the Acid2 test on some (but not all) Windows XP SP2 PCs. My screenshot's in here. Because it happens only on some machines, noone has found what's causing this. The only reference I could find is a post from an unknown blog. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR But find a source and add it. It will stay. ==72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


'Aggressive distribution' via Software Update

Just recently, Safari 3.1 for Windows has been distributed to Windows users of other Apple software - most notably, iTunes - regardless of whether they had it installed already. A source:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905039

- 124.168.165.137 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Apple does so with all there products, when Software update runs it will by default install all apple windows products that the users has't already installed. On top of that installing safari will also install Bonjour weather you like it or not. --AJenbo (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's effing obnoxious. I updated iTunes last night, woke up today and restarted my computer, and boom! there's this new "Safari"! I thought I had a virus or something. At least it turns out it's harmless, but it was really rude!71.63.15.156 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As you probably know, any recent installation of Apple software comes packaged with Apple Software Update, which by definition serves the only purpose of updating Apple software. When faced with the Apple Software Update window my first reaction was to click "Install 1 item" and let the updater do it's job. Imagine my surprise when I caught a glimpse of the word Safari before the License Agreement popped up which I subsequently declined. It would seem that Apple doesn't so much have an item to "update" so much as new software for people to try out. I don't know about you but I am very happy with Firefox, and had I wanted to try out safari I would have done so myself without having to be prompted to update my existing software. I am absolutely appalled by this distribution method and wonder what others have to say on this issue.GBobly (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it sneeky but extremely amusing and very Jobs-ish. I noticed the "Safari" update and half curiously half eagerly continued much to my satisfaction but definately not Bill's or at least Microsoft's (since he is now effectively retired). I now have 4 browsers: MS IE, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox and Opera since IE is the buggiest and has some kind of resource leak which means that it refuses to open more tabs and finally loses your session if it crashes. Safari's session management is no better by the way but it seems more robust (after all it is based on quality open source components). I therefore use Firefox and Opera as my research browsers as they will reliably preserve multiple named sessions across invocations even if they crash. Opera by the way is the most stable and robust of them all and I try to use IE only as the default scratch browser for the resons already given. Only major problem for me personally with Safari for Windows is that it doesnt parse Windows Internet Shortcuts like the other three so that I cannot use Send To Toys to send a saved address to it instead of opening in the other three (it opens the file://... to the shortcut instead of the URL address http:// embedded within it and id have to write some gobbledy gook windows shell script to fix it) oh dear Steve (Jobs) will you please fix it for me will yah! Pretty please? 122.148.173.37 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't add your personal opinions in Wikipedia articles, as you did by mentioning that the only thing missing seems to be parsing Windows Internet Shortcuts. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not an opinion but a fact relavant to the Windows version of Safari and that section detailing Safari for Windows. IE, Firefox and Opera (the 3 top Windows browser) all support Windows Internet Shortcuts but please feel free to add any other bugs or shortcomings you are aware but until you do it is accurately and factually "semmingly the only thing [ed: functionality] missing" from the Windows version of Safari until you can add something else. Instead of simply reverting the entry put some effort into it and try editing a better version next time. Regards 122.148.173.37 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That Safari does not parse Windows Internet Shortcuts may be a fact, but your statement that it is the only thing that seems to be missing is your opinion. What's in the article now is fine, as long as a reliable source is cited. -- Schapel (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou. I both rephrased and moved it and I will now provide a reference as you will see. Regards Mattjs (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not provide a citation to a reliable source. You added original research. -- Schapel (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Using your own references above: I provided a synthesis and I cited my self (which is not prohibited) and provided, most importantly, VERIFIABILITY with the command line code fragment required! The information I provided factually substantiates the information provided. I don't wish to get into an argument and I do not wish to offend but you should read your own citations. What I provided amply and sufficiently substantiates my claims and you will lose this argument if we are forced to refer it upwards to a more experienced editor to arbitrate. So please save my time and yours an allow me to undo your change as my reference factually demonstrating how to replicate the problem was more than sufficient. I have already done so. Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Final word on the matter: people regularly try to bludgeon other contributors here at Wikipedia by quoting rules whilst defying common sense. What I believe I have done here is both manifestly correct rule-wise and makes common sense. (It is only common sense that an ample one line explanation of how to reproduce the now documented problem does not constitute "original research" in any way.) _Reversion_ (rather than clarificational editing which is most welcome) will be met with _immediate_arbitration_ as I am extremely confident of the correctness of my position. I have been an editor here long enough to know although I only contribute in small ways like this these days and most often anonymously. But keep up the good work, Regards, Mattjs (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You must cite reliable sources. You may not cite self-published sources. Please stop adding original research. -- Schapel (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please go forward with the arbitration rather than engage in an edit war. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are clear. Please do not knowingly violate them again. Thank you. -- Schapel (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

still a beta for windows?

is the latest safari (3.1) still a beta for windows? or is it the real product now? i think this should be mentioned in the article, if it is a beta or not. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.123.124 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

should we mention that Apple is forcing iTunes users to install Safari?

What Apple is doing now with their Software Update is not an typical update. Read this: http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.146.45 (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

portable?

if this software is portable, can you provide a link?--Ilhanli (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows use violates EULA

The legal language that accompanies Safari downloads for Windows appears to forbid use on Windows computers: "Apple tried to push the latest version of its Safari browser onto as many computers as possible. But, in doing that, the company also encouraged users to violate the its own End User License Agreement (EULA) for Safari. Will now Apple sue itself? The Safari's EULA states clear: "this License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. Use of this software is subject to the original Software License Agreement(s) that accompanied the software being updated." [11] March 28, 2008

(Revision as of 11:06, 21 April 2008)

Someone immediately censored/deleted the above content. They don't think EULA is a substantive issue. They don't think history belongs in WP. Now you will have to choose what content you think the article should contain. -69.87.204.8 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No it does not violate any terms (not any more). Section 2A, Apple Safari 3.1 EULA: "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on each computer owned or controlled by you." --soum talk 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It was not written as history. It was written in a way that was obviously derisive. Additionally, it was a minor issue that was quickly fixed. Do you think every minor bug that is quickly fixed should be added to the article? Please try to keep a neutral point of view when editing Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The legal language in question was in effect for at least months, perhaps years. And this EULA clause is basically the same as that forbidding using Apple OS on non-Apple equipment -- a very substantial matter, currently much at issue with the Psystar Mac clones. This is no "bug"; this is a "feature". Do not re-write history. What is important here is not that Apple "quickly" fixed this "mistake" when it became public. What is important is that this major matter sat un-noticed in core legal language for a very long time. Either the legal EULA language matters, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways; it can't just mean whatever one wants to hope it means later. -69.87.203.147 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that says the problem with the Safari EULA is a substantial matter, that the Safari EULA is basically the same as the one for Mac OS X, or that this has any connection with Psystar? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, but feel free to prove me wrong, with at least one reliable source to back up your claims. If you can, remember that any mention of it in the article should attribute opinions to the people that state them and it should be written from a neutral point of view. -- Schapel (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Self reference

Per WP:ASR, shouldn't the picture of the RSS feed be changed to something else? It shouldn't refer to the revision history of this article, and the caption definitely shouldn't be linking to WP space. 209.82.43.120 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PayPal/eBay threatens to block older browsers

I think this section should be deleted from the main article, and archived here. While it was highly relevant when there was a possibility that the browser may get banned from eBay, it has little value as it currently stands now that the company has officially denied it. The section could be summarized as "there was speculation in April 2008 whether Safari would be banned from eBay, which turned out not to be the case". This seems like a very trivial detail in an encyclopedia article. Cochonfou (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The "there was speculation" would have to be clarified to remove the passive voice weasel words (i.e. who speculated?). -- Schapel (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the archived section, for eventual refactoring. Cochonfou (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PayPal/eBay threatens to block older browsers PayPal announced in April 2008 that they intended to start blocking Safari access due to security concerns. PayPal’s Michael Barrett stated: "It’s critical to not only warn users about unsafe browsers, but also to disallow older and insecure browsers. Letting users view the PayPal site on one of these browsers is equal to a car manufacturer allowing drivers to buy one of their vehicles without seatbelts."[12] [13] [14] [15] "Michael Barrett, the firm's chief information security officer, said the payment service would ban browsers that lacked a way to block known or suspected phishing sites, and didn't support Extended Validation (EV) certificates."[16] [17] But within a few days they backpedaled, saying "We have absolutely no intention of blocking current versions of any browsers, including Apple's Safari, from our website".[18]

On a related topic, the newly added "Microsoft security advisory", although interesting, might not be significant enough to deserve a whole subsection on the matter. The "Criticism" section begins to look like an agglomeration of slashdot headlines, which is a pity. Well, this is probably a trend difficult to avoid in every article about software which has a "criticism" section. The way this is handled in the Firefox article is much better: instead of a list of events, the "critical reaction" section is a synthetisis of the good and not as good aspects of the browser. I think we should try to adopt such a structure, but of course, we need to work on this.Cochonfou (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows date

Alright after reading the article I see what was meant with the March 2008 date. I think the beta date should be used but either way the sentence shouldn't be ambiguous. It should be "the beta for Windows was released on" or "the final version was released on". BJTalk 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

CSS3 Link Wrong

If you look under the section pertaining to CSS Support near the top, the link to CSS3 goes to an airport. While it does have a message at the top referring to the main CSS page, it feels redundant to have them to jump through two pages when we know what article they were originally looking for. Magriep (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link as redundant, because the reader ends up at the same article as the previous link anyway. -- Schapel (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

I've restored my recent screenshot, which features the Wikipedia home page, is of the current version and although it has been shrunk it is still possible to make out the features of the browser (buttons, labels, etc). Image:SafariWebBrowserAppleHomePage.png is not suitable because it doesn't show the Wikipedia home page and at 1,121 × 784 is nowhere near low resolution. Image:Safari-3-1-2.png is useless because it has been reduced to such an extent that you can't actually make out any detail. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW When taking a screenshot it's a good idea to reduce the size of the browser window, so that when you take the screenshot the browser chrome isn't just a thin strip across the top of the image. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd ask you to take another screenshot, this time so that the bookmarks bar is hidden. It is a piece of personal data that should not be included. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually that bookmarks bar is the default. I don't even use Safari. Firefox FTW. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fast

Isn't Safari the fastest browser ever? I happened to read in a website that Safari was 2x faster than Internet Explorer and 1.6x faster than Firefox... - Up and over for a six! (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

debugging feature

Should this article mention the Develop menu, which can be enabled from Preferences → Advanced? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think so..Kiranerys-Talk 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apple's download does not work in Firefox and Opera?

This article's external links includes a link to Apple's safari page, but that page has a download button that displays page http://www.apple.com/safari/download/ with no download capability. Is there a working Apple download page, or has the beta finished? 84user (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: apple's page is now working for me and I am now downloading SafariSetup.exe sized 19.8 megabytes. I assume it was some glitch. 84user (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Address bar

can somebody help and provide a screenshot of the address bar showbing a ssl-page or/and with an ev certificate? thx mabdul 0=* 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


I just tried to download it about seven times on each Firefox, and google Chorme. It said the file was courpted. I then tried it on exploer and it worked. 86.60.98.62 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New Interface in Safari 4, Screenshot ready to go

Since Safari 4 has new interface, I took a screenshot of the browser pointed to Wikipedia's Main site.

It is ready to go.

Is it okay to post it? Bentoman (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Portable Safari

I came to this article looking for a portable version, but I found none, anyway, I finally found a portable version here: http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Applications_(Windows)

Maybe you wikipedia people want to add that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.123.53 (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice, it should be ok to include it, I'll add that... 15:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't trust it. Portable Version? Psh, get it on the Apple site: Apple.com Home.

Dropouts on web

Anybody notice that sometimes when browsing on the web, some things don't work properly when using Safari? I've had 2 occasions when I complained to websites about something not working, to be told I was wrong. When I switched to Firefox, those things then worked as they were supposed to. It's got so I don't trust Safari to use as a web browser. If this is common, it should be added to the article. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Market share

Hitslink changed their methodology, and Safari is back down to 4.07%. The change is bit confusing, but it brings their stats more into line with other sites. I'm going to change the article to match the new statistics, but I know people aren't going to like this, and that the topic is going to be discussed (maybe a unified discussion for all browsers?) -- Austin512 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Safari on Windows screenshot

File:Safari 4 on Windows XP.png Safari 4 on Windows XP.

The current screenshot of Safari on Windows is cropped so as to be missing the window chrome. It would be nice if the screenshot wasn’t cropped in this odd manner. 76.102.161.141 (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

webarchive

does anybody know if safari4 on windows is able to handle webarchive files? mabdul 0=* 16:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. 69.181.227.133 (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Browser Exploit : Stay or Delete ?

To whoever added that section. Please do a little bit more homework.

Past the journalistic 'ten seconds' claims the value of the entire Safari exploit is useless.

The 'cracking' of Safari took Charlie Millers team weeks of effort to accomplish. This they did in the weeks prior to the game being open and with the information given to them by the competition organisers. In the end, all that Miller did on the day was load the preconfigured exploit.

In consequence, the entire PWN 2 OWN competition has come in for substantial criticism owing to its lax rules.

I hardly see any value in keeping this section.

Should the whole PWN 2 OWN matter even be on the Safari page ?

Aquafire (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As a regular Safari user and occasional Apple article editor, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the inclusion of this information. Apple has since patched both exploits. It is true that irresponsible, sensationalistic presentation of the news of these exploits served to draw inappropriate attention to Safari's viability as a secure web browser from casual observers. But these events also served to draw *appropriate* attention to flaws and practices that needed to be fixed (for the benefit of its users!); if there is a place to present this information responsibly (properly sourced), I would think that Wikipedia would be a prime candidate. This information is notable and sourced. I didn't create the section, but I did edit and add references to it. I say we should leave it in. 69.181.227.133 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PithHelmet

Because this plug-in is notable (it's covered at some length in a book), and because this article doesn't mention ad blocking beyond the built-in popup blocking, I propose that the little stub on PithHelmet be merged here. Pcap ping 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I could only understand the existence of a "Notable plug-ins" section if (A) Safari had an official, dedicated extensibility architecture beyond Netscape-style plug-ins (similar to Firefox Extensions/Add-ons), (B) Safari had more than a small handful of hacks/plug-ins, (C) those plug-ins were notable enough to have fully fleshed-out wikis of their own, with only brief mention in this hypothetical section, (D) any of these plug-ins were cross-platform, and/or (E) any other wiki for a web browser as prominent as Safari had a similar section dedicated to their own notable plug-ins. But none of those cases is true as far as I can tell.
I left the section in the article during a big update to let others decide whether to remove it or not. In my opinion, I think someone should, and I still might. I'd like to hear more voices on this one. 69.181.227.133 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of plug-ins, I've nominated for deletion Inquisitor (search software), which is another plug-in, but I couldn't find it mentioned in any book on Safari, so it seems WP:UNDUE and WP:SPAM to include it here. Pcap ping 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

-- An IP edit removed this because its advertising. As its notable I think it should stay. Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

PithHelmet has very little specifically to do with Safari. It's a plugin and by all means deserves its own page but thinking from the perspective of a user likely to browse the Safari article, I fail to see why 99.9% of the intended audience would care about this. It feels like ad noise. I vote it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.119.173.71 (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot understand why this PithHelmet section is included. It should be deleted. It is not notable, and if the section were to be called notable plugins more than one should be mentioned. 78.151.141.160 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto archive

This thread is getting rather long, is it OK to setup 90 days/5 thread minimum left auto-archiving? Thanks -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah! I think so. I normally did this by hand. Where is the bot to give him his task? (and can you install the safari-article)? mabdul 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by (and can you install the safari-article)? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You use MizaBot to do Auto-archiving, and then User:HBC Archive Indexerbot to do the indexing. Its now setup on this article. EDIT: You then also need to create the first index page as I have here, and probably add an archive box ({{archive box|auto=yes|index=/Archive index}})-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File size

In the resumé box, the file size (it takes on the HDD) is mentioned for Safari 4.0.4 on Mac OS X 10.6. As also it was concluded in the talk page of Mozilla Firefox, mentioning file sizes has little relevancy. You also would have to mention the file size for Safari on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard and also for Windows XP, Vista x86, Vista x64, 7 x86 and 7 x64. Also you would have to update it for every new release. I think it would be ridiculous to keep mentioning the file size. GoldRenet (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Written in C++

The WebKit rendering engine may be written in C++, but the interface of Safari is Objective-C. The source for saying it's C++ (Lextrait) is not very reliable in that it doesn't give any proof, nor references. I think the mention of program language should either be removed, or have better references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldRenet (talkcontribs) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

When I'm talking about a UI in Objective-C, I mean the Mac/iPhone/etc. version of Safari of course ;) GoldRenet (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither WebKit nor Safari are written in C++. They are currently written in Objective-C. Usb10 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually,excuse me, I think they're written in Objective C++ because of the C++ compatibility and yet the ObjC classes in WebKit and the Cocoa UI in Safari. The reference you used showed example of using WebKit. not the actual language it was written in. Usb10 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Safari Reader

I don't see anything about Safari Reader, Which was provided in Safari 5, It basically makes sites with articles more streamlined, and I think it makes them touch screen and printer friendly, since it puts focus on the article and not the page. I could provide a screenshot, Maybe of the wikipedia article itself? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Safari_Reader.jpg I did so anyway, but it doesn't have to be used, (especially since I'm not totally familure with all the uploading rules, so I setup the file as I went along.Atomic1fire (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good screenshot (and infobox data), and would be great in the article. The only problem is that screenshots can't have the Wikipedia logo in them. People usually do this by scrolling the page down just enough that the logo is out of view. If you could replace the old screenshot with a new version, I'd be happy to integrate it into the article. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone has an image covered now, I think that would work pretty well. Atomic1fire (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible new topic: Known Issues

I am unsure whether it is appropriate to put known issues in Wikipedia for threat of being biased but I came across this page http://web.me.com/quintonclasquin/Safari which highlights a bug. I am new to contributing towards wikipedia and would appreciate other users ideas before adding it to the main page. (203.192.146.136 (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

First and most importantly, welcome to Wikipedia! I took a look at the link, and I'm not sure whether it constitues a reliable source. If you can find one, I think it would be most appropriate to put it under the existing Safari 5 section. Furthermore, note the bug is only on Windows :). Airplaneman 11:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Whilst one can run the test from that page and see the error, one would have to have a technical understanding to verify that the page is setup correctly and so on. Maybe it best to wait then until there is a more reliable source publishing the error. I can see that it would better fit under the Safari 5 Section so there is not need for known issues. As for it being a problem on Windows only, I think that the paragraph could start with "In versions 5.0 and 5.0.1 there is a known issue on the Windows version where... The Mac Os X Version does not have the issue.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.146.136 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Could that with the previous link and the following: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=11909951 be used in conjunction with the previous to generate a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.146.136 (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Apple generally produces quite insecure buggy stuff. example…Flying sheep (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I see Apple has release 5.0.2 which still has the bug (The first source also appears to be updated to reflect this) - cant wait for a reliable source to report this. 203.192.146.136 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not "both"

In a segment "available for both Mac and Windows", I think it should be "available for Mac and Windows" without the "both". There are more than 2 OSs, and Linux is not supported and probably won't be. If this is controversial, I don't want to start a flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.80 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done mabdul 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's "both" because they're the only two operating systems supported by any version of Safari. The clause is really unnecessary, as it's the same situation as Safari 3 and 4. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, "both" doesn't really imply that other OSs do not exist, but probably isn't entirely necessary here either. Letdorf (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

Redirects

PithHelmet still redirects to a non-existant section of this page. I imagine there might be others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastOfGingerTrees (talkcontribs) 21:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Safari 4.1.3 incompatible with OS X 10.5.4

The main page of this article would be improved if it pointed out that Safari 4.1.3 screeches to a halt, and is incompatible with OS X 10.5.4. This is a minor point but the main article implies Safari 4.1.3 will work with OS X 10.4 "and later." Unfortunately, it doesn't. The main reason I came to this article is to find out what version does work with OS X 10.5.4. I don't want to install OS X 10.6.3 (which I am happy to say is in my collection) because OS X 10.5.4 works good enough, and I will encounter a host of compatibility problems mixing Apps that are consistent with OS X 10.5.4 but incompatible with OS X 10.6.2. 216.99.219.228 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Safari 4.1 was an exclusive release for Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" users. On the contrary, Safari 5 runs on Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" and later. So you can use that version on your machine in question; just use Software Update in the Apple menu or download it directly Apple's site. GoldRenet 11:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The iOS features are real

I can't cite the source, but I can confirm as an iOS user that the features in iOS (such as the Web Clips, the saving pictures, etc) are in fact available. lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERPRECISION. It is safe to say that there is sufficient context to avoid confusion. Marcus Qwertyus 00:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose did you know about Browser disambiguation page, and there are things called "file browsers", etc? If you don't know what Chromium is, how is "browser" going to disambiguate that? And don't assume that Safari or Opera are popular enough for most people to know them. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
How is "browser" going to disambiguate that? Note that Firefox carries no disambiguater. Disambiguaters are meant to navigate the user to the page he/she's looking for on a disambiguation page like Chromium (disambiguation). Unless there is a Chromium (file browser) that it could get confused with, there is no need for overprecision. Marcus Qwertyus 07:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point about disambiguators. Disambiguators should not be ambiguous, thus if the disambiguator is used as a disambiguation page, it should not be used as a disambiguatory term. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:Overprecision states that only as much disambiguation as is necessary should be used. Marcus Qwertyus 21:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It is lacking in precision if our page on the subject browser is a disambiguation page. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really. BootX (Apple) for example. Marcus Qwertyus 04:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
"BootX (Apple)" =/= "BootX (apple)" there's a capital letter difference 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems a pretty pointless move and the current name is pretty explanatory. Dsergeant (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons already stated above. --Demonkoryu (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguators should not be ambiguous. --Kvng (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Actually Marcus Qwertyus is right: parenthetical disambiguators need not be unambiguous on their own. They need to be unambiguous when it comes to the term in question. Is there something else that Safari (browser) could refer to? If not, Safari (browser) is precise enough. "Web browser" makes it easier for someone familiar with Safari to recognize the article, but "browser" would probably work too, for someone familiar with Safari. The other WP:NAMINGCRITERIA include conciseness, which suggests the shorter dabber, and consistency, which suggests changing them all, since it's sufficiently unambiguous for most web browsers. While I think Safari (web browser) is helpful to people unfamiliar with the topic, title policy suggests Safari (browser). --Pnm (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Demonstration of Ads in mobile (iOS)

iOS 6 Safari introduced a new feature: small ads in down part of the screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.70.99 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have an image of this, and feel that it would be beneficial to the content of the article, please add it. drewmunn (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://betanews.com/2010/04/09/the-big-change-coming-to-safari-5-kernel-level-multi-processing/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This does not look like reverse copying: the article was published on the 9th of April 2010, and the infringing text was first inserted the next day. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

R.I.P. non-*Lion - pre-edit RFD

Non-Mac Safari is being discontinued. It's best if we have a non-primary source, but it seems clear, 1)given the passage of time, and 2)that, e.g. http://extensions.apple.com/ says to go to http://www.apple.com/safari/download to

Download the latest version of Safari, but it directs to pages witn no downloading info, and 3)

http://www.apple.com/safari/what-is.html doesn't even have the word Windows on it, and http://www.apple.com/safari/features.html doesn't mention Windows, and.... Anyone still have information suggesting otherwise or that it's unclear? (Well, http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1531 still works; it's still obtainable from Apple.)--Elvey (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Safari is no longer updated beyond version 5.1.7 for Windows

According to this, Safari used to support Windows XP Service Pack 2/3, Windows Vista, and Windows 7. The latest version of Safari for Windows is 5.1.7, which was released on May 9, 2012. There are no new updates beyond this version for Windows. There is no official support for Windows 8 and later versions either. Apple Inc. has removed access to the Safari download page from this link, since Safari 6 is now integrated into Mac OS X Lion and OS X Mountain Lion. The link now redirects to the main Safari page since the release of Mountain Lion. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the WebKit nightly builds site and Building WebKit on Windows, the WebKit team is fighting repeated breakage of the Windows version. Since the patches landed seem to frequently cause the Windows build to break, nightly builds are no longer being published. This does NOT mean WebKit on Windows is necessarily dead. What it DOES mean is that the automated build bots that create nightly Windows builds are switched off for now, until the build problems get fixed. This MAY indicate that Apple plans to revive Safari for Windows. Then again, it's entirely possible that Apple considers Safari for Windows to have run its course, and only maintains Windows WebKit for use in other products, like iTunes. --Wrldwzrd89talk 20:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Browsers like Chrome are built on the WebKit framework, so I imagine that's a major reason that it's still kept fairly up to date. As Apple are fairly keen on driving customers away from IE, it'd be silly to completely pull the support for the framework running the most popular competitors.  drewmunn  talk  21:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Webkit2

Webkit 2 was announced on April 8th 2010, not 9th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.93.142 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok Baby Doll 1983 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Article Image is Outdated

Could someone please create a screenshot of Safari v7.0 running in OS7 Mavericks as a full window with the Wikipedia page open or the New tab page, and amend the current screenshot as it is heavily outdated (by a year and half). Upload the screenshot to Wikimedia Commons too. 2.98.234.64 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jacedc (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement about user base for browser statistic of w3school

If I read the history correct BattyBot made the following change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safari_%28web_browser%29&diff=626554537&oldid=625560859

The first question that comes to my mind is: Why is a bot adding statistics of this very specific website instead of referring to either NetApplications (which was in there before), statcounter or alternatively even both? For now I only changed the misleading statement "of all web browsing traffic" to "of their web browsing traffic", but I hope this just makes it more obvious how non-general their statistics are. I don't have the time atm to change more, but hope someone has soon. Retrovertigo en (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)