User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0a2) Gecko/20120224 Firefox/12.0a2 Iceweasel/12.0a2 Build ID: 20120224042008 Steps to reproduce: Browsed http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Main_Page Actual results: Noticed the navigation side panel is shoved horribly down, leaving an ugly blank space. Expected results: You might say they are using an older Mediawiki, but all other browsers I tested don't display this Firefox bug.

Never mind what versions etc. they use, http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Special:Version . One just hopes Firefox would render it like other browsers.

Yes I used -safe-mode.

Regression window(m-i) Works: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b727463566a1 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0a1) Gecko/20110820 Firefox/9.0a1 ID:20110820184005 Fails(blank page): http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/857f058efa56 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0a1) Gecko/20110820 Firefox/9.0a1 ID:20110821013315 Pushlog: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/pushloghtml?fromchange=b727463566a1&tochange=857f058efa56 Suspected bug: Bug 679971

jidanni, the version of MediaWiki used by that site is out of date, and incorrectly sniffs for Navigator.taintEnabled() for browser detection. The site needs to update it's MediaWiki install. See bug 683151 comment 8 for the minimum newer version they need to install.

And by "it's" I of course meant "its"... doh :-/

Who is going to contact them? jidanni?

I find it hard to contact individual website owners. I am glad you found the cause though. So this legacy of sniffing leaves pain for generations. Anyway, I usually use emacs-w3m, so don't really usually see anybody's CSS. B y e....

This is fixed. If not by updating their mediawiki installation, then by our changes in bug 679971.

Does it mean we have given up to remove navigator.taintEnabled()? If so, bug 679971 should be WONTFIX'ed.

> Does it mean we have given up to remove navigator.taintEnabled()? (Firefox 9 broke a top-10 site in Poland on release day, and some others. I proposed to do it different before release (e.g. bug 679971 comment 15), but ... ) > If so, bug 679971 should be WONTFIX'ed. Well, bug 679971 is now one of our x-thousand open bugs. May be later? Has the proposed warning (bug 679971 comment 65) been added? I'm afraid not.