why does the new mozilla for mac work horribly

> bz isn't CCed, but he explained his reasons for why opening with a helper app It sounds to me like what we actually want to do is ensure that 'view inline' is never offered for files that are served with 'content-disposition: attachment'. Issue 2: When users click ' Always do this' the UI should listenīz, you point out in comment 5 that this is probably OK to do as long as the actions don't include 'view inline' or 'open in app.' I understand your objection to 'view inline' since that's the entire point of 'content-disposition: attachment', but 'open in app' is simply saving the user a double click and I don't see any real argument why just because something is meant to be an attachment doesn't mean that if a user takes the action to click on it we can't automate the 'open' step after the 'download' step. Is there any other reason why servers would use 'content-disposition: attachment' other than to signal that the file is not to be loaded inline? Are we running into a case where the actual State of The Web differs from the Intent of the Spec? Issue 1: 'content-disposition: attachment' was created specifically and only to allow a server to specify 'this file should be treated as an 'attachment' and only saved to the disk, not displayed inline' What would be a security problem is 'fixing' bug 185618.īoris, are you actually against having this UI change in Firefox, or are bug 236541 comment 38 through 48 just about implementation details?įrom what I can tell reading through some of the backlog litany here, there are two issues concerning this bug: I don't see how fixing this would be a security problem. RFC 2183's wording only makes sense to me in the context of mail messages, not in the context of link clicks.

That problem exists even without content-disposition: attachment and I don't think working around it is a major use case for content-disposition: attachment. The only problem would be remembering the action as 'open with (deliberately unhelpful PDF reader application)' and then not figuring out how to undo that remembering.

Even with his 'deliberately unhelpful PDF reader application' use case, remembering the action as 'download' wouldn't be a problem. As far as I know, web sites use 'content-disposition: attachment' as a security measure to mean 'don't treat this as a web page served from this server', not 'make sure the user is prompted before the file is downloaded'.īoris seems to be claiming otherwise in bug 285976, but I'm not convinced.

Why does the new mozilla for mac work horribly