MHTML Format - Web Archive Files - Standard not supported in Firefox
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mozilla Firefox |
Won't Fix
|
Medium
|
|||
firefox (Ubuntu) |
Triaged
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Binary package hint: firefox-3.0
this location http://
displays
This document is a Web archive file. If you are seeing this message, this means your browser or editor doesn't support Web archive files. For more information on the Web archive format, go to http://
I am using ubuntu 8.04
ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
Date: Sun Jun 15 10:28:40 2008
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 8.04
NonfreeKernelMo
Package: firefox-3.0 3.0~rc1+
PackageArchitec
ProcEnviron:
PATH=/
LANG=en_GB.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: firefox-3.0
Uname: Linux 2.6.24-18-generic i686
WORKAROUND <Thanks Thomas>:
http://
Changed in firefox-3.0: | |
status: | New → Invalid |
Changed in firefox: | |
status: | Unknown → Confirmed |
Changed in firefox-3.0: | |
status: | Invalid → Confirmed |
Changed in firefox-3.0 (Ubuntu): | |
importance: | Undecided → Low |
status: | Confirmed → Triaged |
Changed in firefox: | |
importance: | Unknown → Wishlist |
summary: |
- MHTML Format - Web Archive Files - not supported in Firefox + MHTML Format - Web Archive Files - Standard not supported in Firefox |
Changed in firefox (Ubuntu): | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → Wishlist |
no longer affects: | firefox-3.0 (Ubuntu) |
no longer affects: | firefox-3.5 (Ubuntu) |
Changed in firefox: | |
status: | Confirmed → Won't Fix |
Changed in firefox: | |
importance: | Wishlist → Medium |
Copied the following comment from bug 17309 (cc-ing contributor):
>------ Additional Comments From <email address hidden> 11/13/99 07:03 ------
>Authors could add the proprietary "important" keyword to the list of keywords
>in the rel attribute of the link element, e.g., rel="important stylesheet" (or
>rel="stylesheet important") to do what you want without resorting to RFC2557.
Yes, they could, but they would have no guarantee that Mozilla or any other
browser would either interpret that they way they want or implement the
behaviour they want in response, nor that a future version would not do
something slightly or markedly different.
Providing an rfc2557 MHTML mechanism would take care of the extreme case,
leaving room for a reasonable policy for "important stylesheet" that would
not necessarily mean "absolutely required" from this point forward.
Having said that, I absolutely would not advocate MHTML in the browser as the
*only* mechanism provided to authors to indicate how important or necessary
a stylesheet is, lest this feature get thought of by anyone as the only way
to go. I'd go so far as to say don't add the feature if nothing else is
provided as a fix for bug 17309.