© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #15)
> I'm not sure that I buy his argument, because I can't really think of any apps
> that don't let you save a copy the file once it's opened (e.g. "Save as").
Acrobat Reader, if the right bits are set on the PDF. It'll let you edit the PDF, and read it, and print it, but not save it. Yes, it's weird. Yes, other PDF viewers have similar behavior if those bits are set. Yes, it's required by the PDF spec last I checked. Yes, plenty of PDFs out there have those bits set; about half of the job application PDFs Emma is running into as part of her job search seem to. The expectation is that you fill it out, print it, and send it in, but don't save it, apparently.
It's also possible to create Word documents that behave this way, for what it's worth. I don't know _why_ people do it, but they do. Just Google "prevent save as in Word" for all the fun you want.
I've also encountered some image viewers (admittedly, harder to find nowadays) that have no "save as" at all, because they're just viewers, not editors.
Comment 15 is correct in terms of terminology. If I meant "plug-in", I would say "plug-in". "Helper app" is what we've used for external apps all along.
(In reply to comment #14)
> Actually now that I think about it, what would prevent malicious code from
> being placed into a file with a header that doesn't require RFC 2183???
Nothing, on your own site which would then get blacklisted as soon as the problem is discovered. On the other hand, obeying RFC 2183 prevents you from uploading your malicious stuff to some other site that just wants to let people upload things. At least if said other site is a little careful.
(In reply to comment #18)
We should already be saving the helper app the user selected last. If we're not, that's a bug (and a regression from the XPFE dialog). If we're not doing that, please file. The only other thing proposed in comment 18 is that we remember the last-selected choice but don't execute it. I would be fine with that, I think, since it gives the user a chance to select the other option if the default one is giving broken behavior.
(In reply to comment #21)
(1) Yes
(2) imo, yes, if we just run a helper app without prompting. Certainly yes if
we handle internally in any way, but I don't think anyone's suggesting that.
(3) Agreed on lack of spec.
That all said, if we in fact don't save the user-selected helper app, _that_ should be considered for blocking status, imo. Even if Firefox has shipped that way "forever".