FF2.0b2 - file opening dialog was changed? Or else, WTF?

Scarlettrunner20 · September 6th, 2006, 5:45 pm

Your argument is moot seems to me as there must be something wrong with RenegadeX's profile or some setting. I don't get that limited download box on that MP3 file. I have a choice to open in my default player rather than save it to disk same as I have with 1.5. This is on a brand new profile.

RenegadeX · Post by **RenegadeX** » September 6th, 2006, 6:09 pm

^ Yes, that's strange. As I noted a few pages back - there also seems to be a difference between similar systems back on 1.5.0.6 - I get the blank page on an .exe and my brother's brand new system prompted a nice blue dialog box.

Anyone have any theories for these differences?

Scarlettrunner20 · September 6th, 2006, 6:44 pm

I get nothing on 1.5.0.6 (actually since 1.0 I think) or 2.0beta 1 and now 2 when trying to download and install an xpi file. I don't get a blank page. Nothing happens and it not due to having downloads from the site blocked. I allow the site and I still get nothing. I ALWAYS have to download by right click "save this link" to disk. That has been the case for a long time on Fx for me on different computers and different OSes. I thought that had been made a feature of Fx. I don't mind because I prefer to download xpi files to disk so I have them for a new profile or whatever.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » September 6th, 2006, 7:27 pm

Dang. Knew I should've posted about 3 hrs back. Cusser, I kinda started the regression thought trail. Which back in my second post I felt funny calling it that entirely. I was going to say this in fact seems like a new bug entirely. From what I understand a checkin can cause something to regress [something that was fixed before to break] or it can cause a new symptom entirely. I was using the term loosely. So, Thump, no need to drum it into people's heads. Been a while since posting in the forums, so I'm not 100% on point right now. Should've changed it when my gut told me to... #-o

And, I wasn't using the term to say any UI change I don't approve of b/c I had no prior knowledge [except for the .exe] that this was done by design - which you seem to imply. I mentioned earlier that could be the only answer. Now, what I do believe until I otherwise can find the checkin mentioning the move to force saving more file types, is that it was unintentional, if the server is relaying the correct MIME type all along.

Btw, thanks for the history lesson on MIME types, Chris, it's how we learn.

Again, haven't had the chance to experience the new dialogs on beta 2.0 2 for myself, or test what file types work or don't work when it comes to opening from target. I don't have any beef w/ the current UI design, I just believe file types like .pdf, .zip, and so on have a right to be either opened or downloaded. Just to be clear.

Reg, before you run us all around in circles, I went back and looked thru the pages for your OS and what not. I only saw you Build ID. I assume you and your brother are both on XP SP2? I understand it's a brand new profile - but you haven't installed any extensions in it right? Also, would him downloading the beta 2.0 version of either trunk or branch make a difference? And just after you experience the undesired behavior, maybe you should check the Error Console on the off chance something gets left behind? Though that's a small chance.

the-edmeister · Post by **the-edmeister** » September 6th, 2006, 10:51 pm

oldtimer wrote:I ran into this on hyperlinks and do not have the tools to find the MIME type that Thumper has found. I do remember in the Trunk builds though someone suggesting an easy way to discover this information - was it 'View Source' or 'DOM Inspector'? Or possibly some addon I can't even think of right now. Page Info also came to mind but I don't ever remember it being able to determine the MIME type of a target.

Thanks for jogging my memory, I had a feeling I was missing a 'tool' that was installed when I had that problem - DOMi.

The thing about this 'change' that really ticks me off is that the Save Link in Folder extension now exhibits "No reference to a file!" on the same links (as far as I can ascertain) that display the 'new' 'would you like to save this file' dialog, but that is for the developer of that extension to fix.

I have said it before, and will say it again, "enhancements" such as this really belong in versions a lot earlier that a Beta2 version. Users are clamoring for "beta2" or Firefox 2.0 extensions, and the extension developers seem to be wisely waiting until the last minute so they aren't caught by surprise with last minute changes that break their product.

Ed

Johnny_Sun · Post by **Johnny_Sun** » September 6th, 2006, 11:27 pm

I really hate the new dialog because I now can NOT select my download manager(like flashgot) for some file types now!!!

RenegadeX · Post by **RenegadeX** » September 7th, 2006, 12:13 am

'oldtimer' -- I think this may be going a little OT as what I'm about to say deals with FF1.5.0.6 and .exe's and the behaviour does not seem to appear in 2.0b2 (but it was possibly one of the reasons for the change)- but let's see if I can make this simple:
- My test file for all systems is the Firefox Windows .exe from the Download link at http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/)
- my main system is WinXP-Pro (SP2); my brother's system is WinXP Media Center Edition; This evening, I also tested it out on another Win-XP-Pro system - producing the same behaviour that my brother saw.
- After much testing on my regular system this evening, I discovered that even in the same browser session, using the same page and the same file, *SOMETIMES* I get a dialog box, and sometimes I get a blank page.
- My findings: files served from FTP sites never seem to trigger the dialog box; some mirrors that are apparently http also do not trigger. I just hit 'Back' and then clicked the Download Now link and noted the file source. I then took a look at the mirror list: http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html. ex: Utah(Http) triggers a dialog box, wheras California(Http) does not (ie: you get the dreaded blank page). Again - this is all on 1.5.0.6

What's causing some files to trigger and some not to? As I said at the top, it's probably moot as It seems that FF2.0b2 bypasses this 'issue' as we seemingly never get a blank page now. But perhaps this might be a clue why some file types in 2.0b2 are not triggering the 'Open With' option? (such as the MP3 example I posted earlier)

Thumper · Post by **Thumper** » September 7th, 2006, 2:00 am

files served from FTP sites never seem to trigger the dialog box

FTP doesn't use MIME. It's either binary or text.

What's causing some files to trigger and some not to?

Whatever it is, it isn't directly related to the UI change in 2.0.

I really hate the new dialog because I now can NOT select my download manager(like flashgot) for some file types now!!!

Hi. Welcome to the thread. Please contact the author of Flashgot and tell him to properly update his extension for 2.0 instead of just bumping the maxversion number.

- Chris

RenegadeX · Post by **RenegadeX** » September 7th, 2006, 11:43 am

Thumper wrote:FTP doesn't use MIME. It's either binary or text.
.. Whatever it is, it isn't directly related to the UI change in 2.0.

It must be a coincidence then as 2.0b2 handles them all like a champ!

Thumper wrote:Please contact the author of Flashgot and tell him to properly update his extension for 2.0 instead of just bumping the maxversion number.

FYI for Johnny_Sun : Giorgio (author of Flashgot) is aware of the problem - I posted in the FlashGot thread last weekend: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=455058
He says he's looking into it..

RenegadeX · Post by **RenegadeX** » September 10th, 2006, 3:59 pm

^ FlashGot is now 'fixed', see the aforementioned FlashGot thread or AMO
Current fileversion is FlashGot 0.5.96.060910.

I also discovered the Bug that lead to this new user interface change:
Bug #315536: "'do this automatically for files like this from now on' often grayed out".

This new dialog's wording is a contradictory mess!

1) The title of the new dialog (see any of my previously posted screenshots) is "Opening [filename]" and the first line inside it is "You have chosen to open ... [filename]" -- but -- then it prompts "Would you like to save this file? [Save][Cancel]".
Any form of the word 'open' is not relevant with files such as .exe, , as that is not an available option!!

Funny how both the Internet Explorer and Opera designers chose to use the words "file" and "download" in their dialog titles..
2) The last part of the new FF dialog asks a "Would you like to..?" question.

The proper response to a "Would you like to?" phrase is a "Yes I'd like to (whatever)" or "No, I wouldn't like to (whatever)" (or in this context, even a "hmm.. neither, I don't want to Save it, I don't want to Cancel - I want to Open it!") answer.

What annoys me most about this 'improvement' to Firefox is that instead of enhancing the default Firefox product, it puts it a step behind other browsers. Ref: Microsoft's Security Warning explanation and availability of a 'Run' option, and then take a look at the magnificent choice of file download options that Opera provides its users:
Opera screencap (same Firefox.exe download that I've used throughout this thread):

Sure, Firefox has extensions. But the problem is that someone must get around to creating an extension to do what is 'missing', and then the users have to know about it, and find it. And then the extension author must constantly maintain it. Not all extension authors are as prompt and on-top of things as Giorgio Maone (FlashGot). I emailed the OpenDownloads author last week, but haven't heard back yet. I hope that he eventually does, and updates his extension before 2.0 is released. Or even afterwards. But I can't count on it.

And that's a problem.

Frank Lion · Post by **Frank Lion** » September 10th, 2006, 4:06 pm

Thumper wrote:Hi. Welcome to the thread. Please contact the author of Flashgot and tell him to properly update his extension for 2.0 instead of just bumping the maxversion number.

I think you meant "ask him to properly update..." In fact, I'm sure you did.

Thumper · Post by **Thumper** » September 11th, 2006, 1:04 am

Frank Lion wrote:
Thumper wrote:Hi. Welcome to the thread. Please contact the author of Flashgot and tell him to properly update his extension for 2.0 instead of just bumping the maxversion number.

I think you meant "ask him to properly update..." In fact, I'm sure you did.

Of course.

This new dialog's wording is a contradictory mess!

Yup. This is ideal commentary for a bug report on the issue. (bug reports to correct stupid dialogue text are actually proven to get results.)

- Chris

RenegadeX · Post by **RenegadeX** » September 11th, 2006, 4:56 am

Bug 352137.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » September 11th, 2006, 6:46 pm

Renegade, while I admire your attention to detail and illustrating that with as many words as that takes, that bug summary was a lot to take in. I notice simpler attempts at bug reporting get fixed... take peter6's "no more search engines". While elementary as it sounds, makes it a lot faster to read.

Plus, I know - not fair. That was a fresh regression but you get the idea.

And, sorry for earlier not realizing what was exactly going on - I was pretty much stuck in b2 mode after your screenshot in your OP. That's why I pretty much dropped out of the thread until I found you filed a bug [thanks]. I'm not sure you can edit bug titles w/o having privileges? But you should be able to... maybe even shorten the summary a bit and use less words on the repro steps?

From:
Wording in new(2.0b2) 'Opening File' dialog is sometimes contradictory & improper (due to revisions made in fixing Bug 315536)

To:
Wording in 'Opening File' dialog is sometimes contradictory & improper (due to Bug 315536)

But now that I think about it, lol, Too many context menu items added by extensions in the right-click context menu cause cut off context menu... was a biggie as well. It's your call.

molitar · Post by **molitar** » October 3rd, 2006, 8:13 am

ARRRGG! I just discovered about the horrible downloader for Firefox 2. I wonder how many will move back immediately to Firefox 1.x when they find out how horrible it is! Firefox 2 is severely crippled now I have to go use Mr Tech Local Install to install a really old extension that is hidden on some other site called Mime Editor so I can add a mime type to open..

1. Install Mr. Tech Local Install
2. Override compatability to install Mime Editor 0.2
3. Install Open Download extension

Just so I can download a simple nfo file in my application of choice. Not only that most users don't have a clue how to edit the mime even with the mime editor to make it work. So now with this new downloader you alienated the common user to go start using IE or some other browser because functionality of it has been severely crippled. Seems like with the direction Firefox is heading in I am going to have to start recommending Opera to my computer clients because they would kill me when they are not able to download that business file they need that may have some strange extension.