So what's magical about Safari?

[Joel Harrison]

It seems it's because Phorm uses 3rd party cookies (which sparked the
whole CMA / Fraud Act thread), which Safari doesn't accept by default.

This is from the Safari developers' FAQ:

Safari ships with a conservative cookie policy which limits cookie
writes to only the pages chosen ("navigated to") by the user. This
default conservative policy may confuse frame based sites that attempt
to write cookies and fail. Be sure to check the Safari preferences
before assuming that your cookies are not written due to a bug; it may
just be the users preference.

Interestingly, BT has now deleted the words "and so Safari browsing
will not pass through it" from its Webwise FAQ.  With those words
included, it sounded like Webwise broke Safari; whereas in fact Safari
appears to break Webwise.

Joel

On 4/3/08, Ian Batten <igb@batten.eu.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> So, what's the difference about Safari?  If they've gone to the effort to
> get it working with a frankly minority sport like Opera, I presume that
> Safari is in some way hard, rather than just untested.  The implication is
> that Safari does something that interacts badly with Phorm's methods, and
> either breaks things or reveals the man behind the curtain.  I've not done
> any development for web apps since CERN httpd was the very thing for a man
> about town, but does anyone with more current experience know of any
> wrinkles?
>
> ian
>
>
>
>
>
> BT Webwise works with most major browsers, including Internet Explorer,
> Firefox, Netscape and Opera. Safari is not supported by the BT Webwise
> system and so Safari browsing will not pass through it. BT Webwise has been
> tested and proven to work with the following:
> Internet Explorer 5.5, 6.0, 7.0
> Firefox 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
> Opera 7.54, 8.54, 9.0