Comment 134 for bug 237679

Aleksej and reporter, I agree very much with the goal of this bug, but I think it should be resolved duplicate of 405795 as proposed by Shawn in comment #7, for the following reasons:

1) This bug covers a very small subset (make *Keywords* accesible via "Add/Edit this bookmark" / Bookmark Properties dialogues) of bug 405795 (make *all properties* accessible for the dialogues).

2) If your preferred solution is to have the Keywords property visible /at all times/ (without ever clicking more-button to expand the dialogue): this won't happen. Bug 405795 comment #15 leaves no doubt that the minimal ("streamlined" / "crippled") design of the dialogue is intended and only light-weight ("non-obtrusive") additions will be accepted. As much as I am in favour of making the dialogue expandable to edit all properties, I think adding only "Keywords" property permanently to the reduced(!) dialogue would be very confusing: Average user won't know the difference between tags and keywords.

3) With 2) in mind, I think there are only 2 possible solutions for this bug:

a) make reduced "Edit this bookmark" dialogue expandable (more-button) to edit all the properties of a bookmark /inside/ the dialogue. IMO, this is the most-needed and most intuitive option.

b) add a button that links to some other way of editing all properties /outside/ the reduced dialogue (all properties window, "Open containing folder in Library" etc.). IMO, this alone(!) makes it unnecessarily complex to edit the props.

c) combine a) and b): expandable properties dialogue AND "Open containing folder in Library" button (cf. bug 469441). IMO, this is the best solution with added value.

All these possible solutions are covered and discussed in bug 405795. I have proposed a sample UI of the expandable dialogue in bug 405975 attachment 392075, which solves the problem of this bug by combining the best of a) and b).
In other words: we should focus our energy on finding a good solution for bug 405795 that makes everyone happy.

Aleksej and reporter, any objections against resolving this bug as a duplicate?