This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 29561 - Issue attachments now forced to be downloads even for text & images
Summary: Issue attachments now forced to be downloads even for text & images
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: obsolete
Classification: Unclassified
Component: collabnet (show other bugs)
Version: 3.x
Hardware: PC Linux
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: support
URL: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/showat...
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-12-15 21:55 UTC by Jesse Glick
Modified: 2009-11-08 02:31 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jesse Glick 2002-12-15 21:55:45 UTC
I don't believe this was always the case in
Issuezilla, but it is now.

See the attachment link given in the URL field
(from issue #29383). It is a GIF image.

When I click on this link in Mozilla 1.2.1/Linux,
I am asked to save a file of type image/gif to
disk. But all I wanted was to look at it in the
browser, not download and save it. The same
happens for other MIME types that the browser is
quite capable of viewing directly - text/plain, etc.

Examining HTTP headers with netcat, I see that the
guilty headers are:

Content-disposition: attachment;
filename=NBSplash_3_4_1.gif
Content-Type: image/gif; name=NBSplash_3_4_1.gif

Why the "Content-disposition: attachment" line? If
you just delete that header line, the browser
displays the image like you would expect.

For MIME types that you probably want to save -
application/*, for example - the
content-disposition header makes sense, since it
permits a filename to be specified.

Suggest either:

1. Selected common inline-viewable types, e.g.
image/* and text/*, be given content-disposition:
inline.

2. The IZ page for an issue have two links for
each existing attachment: one to save as an
attachment (giving the filename), one to view
directly in the browser (assuming the browser can
render that MIME type).
Comment 1 rbalada 2002-12-16 08:18:31 UTC
Jesse,
your issue is an oposite to solution for issue 8883.
IMHO according to RFC 2616 your issue belongs to mozilla.org ;-(

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec19.html#sec19.5.1

See related mozilla.org bugs:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98360
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62760

From my point of view your issue is browser-related and though invalid
;-(.
Comment 2 Jesse Glick 2002-12-16 15:31:24 UTC
Thanks for the tip (I missed Moz #98360 before since it was marked
FIXED), I filed:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185618
Comment 3 Jesse Glick 2002-12-17 15:24:17 UTC
As mentioned by Boris here:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=185618#c2

IZ can in fact do better. Just use 'inline' rather than 'attachment'
as the disposition, but continue to supply a filename. At least in Moz
1.2.1, if the browser can display it inline, it will, but Ctrl-S will
use the supplied filename as a default; if it cannot be displayed
inline, a save dialog will be shown, again with the correct default
filename. Someone using IE can confirm that the proposed change would
at least be no worse for IE users.

See http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1806.txt ss. 2.3:

"The presence of the filename parameter does not force an
implementation to write the entity to a separate file. It is perfectly
acceptable for implementations to leave the entity as part   of the
normal mail stream unless the user requests otherwise. As a  
consequence, the parameter may be used on any MIME entity, even
'inline' ones. These will not normally be written to files, but the  
parameter could be used to provide a filename if the receiving user  
should choose to write the part to a file."
Comment 4 jveres 2003-01-22 22:30:30 UTC
Hi Jesse,
I think you remember correctly meaning that the described behavior is
somewhat new. It does not occur when I use Mozilla 1.0.1/linux. It
does however with Mozilla 1.2 and higher including 1.3a.

I'd file internal issue for management to evaluate request.
Comment 5 jveres 2003-01-22 22:46:14 UTC
update: filed internal issue pcn 14314 for management.

action plan: monitor internal issue for updates

next update: upon reply from management.
Comment 6 Jesse Glick 2003-02-13 22:48:31 UTC
Gili this problem in Issuezilla is the root of the problem; recent
versions of Mozilla are behaving as the server requested.

Of more interest: this bug was already fixed in Bugzilla! See
attachment.cgi:

revision 1.25
date: 2002/09/28 04:10:27;  author: justdave%syndicomm.com;  state:
Exp;  lines: +1 -7
Fix for bug 171296: changing Content-disposition header in
attachment.cgi to use 'inline' instead of 'attachment' so that it
doesn't *force* you to download it.
r= bbaetz, bzbarsky

More info:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171296
Comment 7 Jesse Glick 2003-04-07 16:42:11 UTC
Note that the behavior is even more annoying under Mozilla 1.3 due to
changes in the attachment handler dialog.

Any update on status of this fix? The patch is probably trivial; the
Bugzilla patch was done months ago and only affected a few lines of
code (making them simpler)!

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=100971&action=view
Comment 8 Unknown 2003-04-08 21:55:34 UTC
I have asked for an engineering update to this issue.
I will update the issue by 4/11 & escalate by 4/14 if I do 
not get a response.
Eric
Comment 9 Unknown 2003-08-29 10:38:28 UTC
This issue can be checked again with the recent releases of 
Mozilla and also in 2.6 stage. So currently closing this as 
fixed, NB can reopen this again if it reoccurs in 2.6 too.

Priya.
Comment 10 Jesse Glick 2003-08-29 15:23:33 UTC
This is still a problem with Mozilla 1.4, the latest release from
mozilla.org.

Is the Issuezilla bug actually patched and fixed in SourceCast 2.6 (I
am assuming that is what "2.6" refers to), or are you just saying we
should try SC 2.6 when available and see if someone happened to fix it
by accident? I don't really understand this resolution. Has any
engineer actually confirmed that the problem is fixed (when using e.g.
Moz 1.4) with a development version of SC's Issuezilla?
Comment 11 Unknown 2003-08-29 16:46:00 UTC
I have tested this in the stage of NB(I mean the 2.6 here) 
(Mozilla /linux)to verify this, it worked fine. And also 
this has been tested early with the stable realese of 
mozilla 1.0.2, it worked. Sorry that i should have asked 
you to verify this. This is not occuring in 2.6 too.(Stage 
of NB). So how do we go now on this?

Priya.

Comment 12 jcatchpoole 2003-09-01 12:42:26 UTC
Sripriya, the original report was for Moz 1.2.1; later Jesse 
adds that the problem still exists in 1.3, and 1.4.  You 
comment that it is fixed in SC2.6 for Moz 1.0.2 - but what
about for the reported versions of Mox ?

Until we know it is fixed for the versions of Moz this issue
was reported against (1.2 and later), it is still an open 
issue IMO.
Comment 13 Unknown 2003-09-01 13:16:49 UTC
Hi Jack!

I have tested this with 1.2 and later(1.3,1.4) in stage box
(2.6) of Netbeans, i can able to open the atachments 
directly. I dont get any dialog box which is asking for 
save.

Thanks,
Priya
Comment 14 Unknown 2003-11-19 13:22:14 UTC
Closing this as resolved fixed for now and will review this issue in 
the forthcoming 2.6 release and will reopen or close as necessary.

Thanks,
Priya
Comment 15 jcatchpoole 2004-05-05 17:34:20 UTC
*** Issue 42289 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 16 Unknown 2006-09-11 16:46:14 UTC
Verified that the issue has been fixed.

Regards,
Karishma
Support Operations
Comment 17 Marian Mirilovic 2009-11-08 02:31:26 UTC
We recently moved out from Collabnet's infrastructure