Closed
Bug 28586
(errorpages)
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
[meta] meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (placeholder page in the content area) (http error pages)
Categories
(Core :: Networking, enhancement, P3)
Core
Networking
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Future
People
(Reporter: mpt, Unassigned)
References
(Depends on 3 open bugs, Blocks 4 open bugs)
Details
(4 keywords, Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate][MB])
Attachments
(3 files, 10 obsolete files)
5.56 KB,
image/gif
|
Details | |
2.22 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
43.04 KB,
patch
|
adamlock
:
review+
adamlock
:
superreview+
asa
:
approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
To reproduce, either: * Run Mozilla on a system which uses a dialup connection, but do not connect the dialup connection. Or: * Run Mozilla on a network which requires you to connect to a proxy server, but specify `Direct connection to the Internet' in proxy prefs. Then: * Try to go to an URL, or open a sidebar which requires Internet access. What happens: * A dialog opens saying something like `Mozilla's connection was refused by the server foo.bar.' What should really happen (in my opinion): * The frame, or sidebar, should open an error page (probably written in XML/CSS, for i18n purposes) which explains that the page is not available. To see why an error page should be used, instead of a dialog, imagine the following scenarios: * A Web server sends me an HTML frameset which refers to half a dozen frames, but somebody trips over a cord and disconnects the server before it can send any of the frames. Result: I have to click `Ok' on half a dozen dialogs. Yuk. * I have half a dozen browser windows open, loading various pages, when my dialup connection disconnects. Result: I have to click `Ok' on half a dozen dialogs. Yuk. The error page solution also has the usability advantage that it can be used as a `place-holder' for the real page -- so, for example, after browsing elsewhere for a while I can use the Back menu to come back to the error page, and then click Reload to have another go at connecting, without having to type the address (or find a link to click on) again. I can't do that with a dialog. Problem occurs on: Mozilla nightly build 2000021608, MacOS 8.6 Does not occur on: Internet Explorer 4.0 or higher
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
Good idea. This should probably go to Networking, CC: UI.
Assignee: cbegle → valeski
Component: Browser-General → Networking
Comment 2•25 years ago
|
||
I agree. I also noticed tonight that sub-documents that can't load also get this dialog, and that seems bogus since layout is responsible for putting up some alt text or image if the load fails.
Target Milestone: M16
tever, do you see this with latest commercial build? Can you give us feedback on what is currently seen? Is foo.bar in dialog still there? Can you not get to sub-directories?
QA Contact: asadotzler → tever
Whiteboard: 2w → [NEED INFO]2w
Spoke with valeski - Putting on [nsbeta2-] radar. Not critical to beta2.
Whiteboard: [NEED INFO]2w → [nsbeta2-]2w
Comment 7•24 years ago
|
||
PLEASE add a preference setting to choose between error pages or dialogs if you're going to impliment this. I HATE the damn error pages in Internet Explorer. If something fails, I really prefer having the previous page still in front of me instead of a blank error page because then I can try something different from that previous page instead of having to hit back and try it again. Furthermore, Please put the error codes on the TOP of that error page instead of the BOTTOM of the page like Internet Explorer. You wouldn't believe how many times I have the following conversations with Internet Explorer users: "HEY! That page doesn't work!" "What error code do you get?" "I get a page saying "This page could not be displayed"". "Yes, but what does it say on the BOTTOM of that page?" "What page? It wouldn't load!" "You know the page that you got instead? What does it say at the bottom of it?" "It says "The page could not be displayed!" "No, what does it say at the VERY BOTTOM of the page?" "Something about how I have to hit Refresh, which I already DID!" (Eventually, I get them to hit page down and they FINALLY tell me the error message at the very bottom of the page). Lots of times, it's a damn 404!
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•24 years ago
|
||
jce: relax. I'll write the text myself, if necessary, so that the name and number of the error is prominent at the top. IE's error pages are often downright wrong in what they say (due to being over-general), but Mozilla's won't be. An error page should apply not only to unreachable servers, but also to * form submission results which are no longer in the cache * HTTP errors (in which case we'd have a brief explanatory header at the top, with a link to the relevant help topic, followed by the server's own error message). Valeski, if either of these need separate bugs, tell me and I'll go file them.
Comment 9•24 years ago
|
||
I think this one comes down to personal preferences, which is why I would really appreciate if we could choose between getting error dialogs or error pages. Please tell me if I could help with this. I would provide arguments why using dialogs are better then error pages, but this seems to be a personal preference thing, so that wouldn't really be constructive.
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
Umm..I meant that the USER should be able to choose between getting error dialogs or error pages by selecting something in the preferences menu. (I thought I should clarify that. :-) )
Updated•24 years ago
|
Summary: Should use error page, not dialog, for inaccessible pages → Should use error page, not dialog, for inaccessible pages (placeholder)
Updated•24 years ago
|
Summary: Should use error page, not dialog, for inaccessible pages (placeholder) → [RFE] Should use error page, not dialog, for inaccessible pages (placeholder)
Target Milestone: M17 → Future
Comment 11•24 years ago
|
||
See also bug 45131. Some people think this is a bug (as opposed to room for an rfe) when it occurs on a frame or iframe, because it interferes with ad-blocking.
Comment 12•24 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 68325 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13•24 years ago
|
||
I think a modal message box for error on accessing page is a bad idea! What useful purpose it can possibly serve that won't be serve by error page or icon? Probably the best method is if the browser give different error formats depend on the context. If it is a main page or a frame, then a error page will be produced. If it is an embedded object ("<IMG SRC..." etc.), then an icon should appear. I don't the structure of mozilla, but a good design will let the code that produce error message about the same level as the code that display the page, therefore the code that produce the error message will know the context of the error and can act accordingly. The lower lever (deal with network, etc.) should not ever produce any display, instead just pass the error code to higher level. Thanks!
Comment 14•24 years ago
|
||
a reason to use a dialog is for when you accidentally get redirected from a page that will not cache. Suppose you have a page that behaves like netscape 4 when viewing google cached pages that include css except that the css page can't be found. The result is that you are redirected to an error page and can't go back to the page you want. if instead you get an error dialog, you can move it out of the way and still read the page. I'd prefer an error sidebar. [Of course sidebars have to be able to float as if they are documents] killing 2w since this thing was futured
Keywords: nsbeta2
Whiteboard: [nsbeta2-]2w
Reporter | ||
Comment 15•24 years ago
|
||
That's a problem for any page which does redirects, not just pages which redirect to error-causing URLs. There's no particular reason that it should be easier to stay on a page which redirects to an error-causing URL than it is to stay on a page which redirects to a valid URL.
Comment 16•24 years ago
|
||
I agree with Matthew.
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
I'd really like to encourage the switch to error icons for inaccessible embedded content by 0.9. I for one recently started blocking certain sites in my hosts file and have had to give up Mozilla for daily browsing for the time being for another Mac browser that does display error icons for such inaccessible content.
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 70846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 78896 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
I'm in the same boat as Greg. The status of this bug will be the primary determining factor in whether or not Mozilla will become my primary browsing software. I strongly encourage the Mozilla team to eliminate those error windows and add icons to signify unreachable hosts.
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
Another big advantage of error page is that it would always be possible to ask Mozilla to retry the problematic URL just by pressing "Reload". With dialog, there does not seem to be a way to retry the communication. OTOH with error page you can even continue browsing and later go back to the error page using the "Back" button and press Reload. Yet another advatnage is that the error page can be save and/or e-mailed (for example to report the error to the server admin), while dialog can not. Alos, with frames, the error page gives you a better visual hint of what part of the page is unavailable. P.S. I am using a local proxy server (squid), so in most of the cases I will get the error page (from proxy) and not a dialog. I can attest that error pages are infinetely more convenient and easy to deal with. Additionally, if Mozilla will use error pages, it would mean that its behaviour would be more consistent, no matter whether proxy is used or not.
Keywords: mozilla0.9.2
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
And for god sakes, have a network admin design the page. If I get *one* more report from a user saying the network/Internet is down, when it's just some dumb websites broken DNS... Boy I'd love to meet the guy who designed IE's error page... Added a vote, we're in double digits now...
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
Same as a lot of folks here. This bug is the one that prevent my company to use mozilla. It will solve problems (Bug 33469) of a lot of people, please vote.
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
After some experimenting, I realized that Mozilla is already handling inaccessible embedded images well, in that either the ALT text or, in its' absence nothing at all, is being displayed. No error dialog is shown, which is good. It appears that IFRAME elements are the culprit. When these specify a URI that is inaccessible, an error dialog is shown. Presumably the same problem would apply to EMBED or OBJECT elements (though OBJECT embedding of text/plain or text/html is still broken; see bug #678).
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
Even if it's just a link that I've clicked on, I still want to see the error page, not a dialog.
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
My guess is that if this bug is fixed properly, the bug #74987 "Specifying an invalid URL using OpenURL via x-remote should display error message" is likely to go away - if the networking code always produces an error page as its output when some error occurs, it will also produce an error page for the URLs communicated through x-remote.
Blocks: 74987
Reporter | ||
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
As the reporter of this RFE, a small note to those on the CC/supporters list: If you want this bug to be fixed, then fix it, or find someone who can. Voting for it won't get it fixed. Spamming the bug report with useless comments about how useful it would be to your particular company/ISP/tiddlywinks club/whatever won't get it fixed. The only thing that will get it fixed is code. Thankyou.
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
I agree about the spamming comment (see bug 53080 for some of the worst of open-source bug tracking), but I want to encourage people to vote, because it does matter (and it takes little time).
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 82947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 31•23 years ago
|
||
Bug 77635 deals with an error message appearing in a Sidebar tab rather than a dialogue if the tab can't be loaded. The significant thing is that it's in the process of being fixed. Perhaps some of the code could be reused to fix this bug (though apparently the current fix is a bit hacky).
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P1] (not a standards compliance bug per se, but...)
Comment 32•23 years ago
|
||
Ok, so instead of complaining about this bug, let's design a solution to this. Here's one: Let's implement an error service which allows us to control what happens with errors, including displaying a page. This would also be VERY helpful to embedders, because it would give them a single point to handle (or override) error displays. What should an nsIErrorService look like? What methods do we need? Where does it need to be hooked in? If we have a design, it CAN get implemented.
Comment 33•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 86658 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 34•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 88708 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 35•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 89252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 37•23 years ago
|
||
Sorry for spam, but i wanted to give you an example problem i have lived with IE5, there was a page with some banner ads on it and while i wanted to enter that page, there was no connection with those ad servers. And after loading quite, at the end a page appeared telling inaccessible page because of those banner ads. You must consider such problems i believe.
Comment 38•23 years ago
|
||
bug 91632 was filed as a dependant on this one in order to fix the "connection refused" window taking focus in mail, where we cant use an error page
No longer blocks: 91632
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P1] (not a standards compliance bug per se, but...) → [Hixie-P0]
Comment 39•23 years ago
|
||
I would say that Mozilla's error pages should be used only where we use a dialog now - e.g. can't lookup server, etc. In addition, it would be *nice* if HTTP login dialogs were HTML pages as well, but that's completely optional. I would strongly discourage using Mozilla error pages for HTTP errors. Many times site administrators put up good 404 pages with a search link, etc. to help users find the content they were looking for. In IE, they get a damn "your internet is broken" page. Please don't do this. Most HTTP servers attach nice HTML documents to their HTTP errors for a reason, and we shouldn't be overriding this.
Comment 40•23 years ago
|
||
I believe IE only replaces a HTTP error page with its own if the page is less than 512 bytes in size (I'm not certain about that figure). It assumes that anything less than 512 bytes can't possibly be useful, but if it's over 512 bytes then the administrator has probably replaced the default error page with a far more helpful one.
Comment 41•23 years ago
|
||
[QA ignore]
> I believe IE only replaces a HTTP error page with its own if the page is less
than 512 bytes in size (I'm not certain about that figure).
Which leads to people adding "magic" comments to the page so it goes "just
above" the limit. I believe it's a braindead way to do it. Mozilla should not
follow IE's lead here; it should unconditionally show the server's error page,
even if it's utterly unhelpful.
Comment 42•23 years ago
|
||
<QA Ignore> >> I believe IE only replaces a HTTP error page with its own if the page is less >> than 512 bytes in size (I'm not certain about that figure). > Which leads to people adding "magic" comments to the page so it goes "just > above" the limit. I believe it's a braindead way to do it. Mozilla should not > follow IE's lead here; it should unconditionally show the server's error page, > even if it's utterly unhelpful. Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I was only explaining how IE's error page replacement system works, not endorsing it (personally, I'm ambivalent). </QA Ignore>
Comment 43•23 years ago
|
||
I believe, this bug has the wrong owner, since valeski isn't in the networking group anymore. REASSIGN to default. (Maybe that helps getting attention.)
Assignee: valeski → neeti
Comment 44•23 years ago
|
||
Resuggesting via keyword from an already-gone milestone to a realistic future one.
Keywords: mozilla0.9.2 → mozilla0.9.5
Comment 45•23 years ago
|
||
I'm working on an implementation for this. It requires a few modifications to Docshell and Session History. I'm assuming that if you go Back or Forward to a page that had a URL error, it should never try to automatically refetch from the server. Only pressing Reload on the error page would try to refetch from the server. Do we want generic error pages ("Server not found"), or pages that contain dynamic information ("Server foo.com not found")? I'd have to do some more work if we need dynamic pages. Can someone (Matthew?) come up with some nice HTML (or XML, or XUL) error pages/icons? We need error pages for: DNS Error, Connection Refused, Socket Timeout, Protocol Handler not Found, and Port Access Not Allowed. Also, "page not available in offline mode" (Bug 45421), and "resubmit post data for page no longer in cache" might be possible but I'd have to look into that. As for HTTP errors like 404, my implementation won't cover that. Since sites can provide their own HTTP error pages, I don't think this should cover that. A statusbar/panel for these errors could be done pretty easily on the XUL front end though.
IMHO we defenetly want "Server foo.com not found"-kind of messages. Preferabley in full html-color'n'glory :) Yes please make history work the way you described, ie don't retry automagically on "back". It would be really cool if we had some sort of error-reporting-interface that can be used to report all kinds of errors. For example by specifying a chrome- url for the errorpage and then some extra messages that messages that should be inserted into that page. For example the XML-parser could give the chrome-url to a page describing that a unrecognized entity is found in a XML-document and then send along line-number and column-number in the loaded file where the unrecognized entity was found. It might even want to send along a copy of that line. So the errorpage-xml could look something like: <error> <p>Unable to load XML page, an unrecongized entity was found at line <message id="line-nr"/> column <message id="col-nr"/>:</p> <p><code><message id="error-line"/></code></p> </error> (Ok, that message wasn't very user-frienly, but you get the idea) And then the parser says that message-id "line-nr" should have value "114", message-id "col-nr" should have value "5" etc. Don't wanna scare you off with something too complicated, just cranking out ideas ;) The advantage of using chrome-urls is that that makes it possible for plugins to deliver thier own errorpages.
Comment 47•23 years ago
|
||
I think perhaps the simplest thing to do for now is to examine the errors that generate these dialogs and decide which should remain dialogs (there are some), and which should display in the content area. Looking at [http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/docshell/base/appstrings.properties#20], I see six strings that appear to be those shown in connection error dialogs. These can be classified into twosorts; 1) the first four, which are shown when the connection request could not be completed for some reason, and 2) the last two, which are alerts about reposting form data. I propose that the first four of these simply be retargeted at the content area rather than spawning a new dialog. The form data repost errors should remain dialogs, since they're prompting the user to take an action prior to accessing a page. It won't be necessary to show any buttons in the content area, obviously. The text is the only thing that need show, although it should probably be larger than it is presently in the dialogs. For embedded documents that generate such errors (IFRAMEs and OBJECTs) no error at all should be displayed when alternate content is available. However, if no alternate content is specified, can Mozilla still draw the error in XUL in the space intended for the IFRAME/OBJECT?
Comment 48•23 years ago
|
||
It's worth noting that fixing bug 96976 will alleviate one of the most annoying problems of this bug; of IFRAMEs specifying blocked or otherwise unreachable hosts. Most sites with advertisement IFRAMEs have a linked image inside the IFRAME element, so if the IFRAME degraded properly and displayed its' alternate content then there wouldn't be unnecessary dialogs to dismiss.
Reporter | ||
Comment 49•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 92524 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 50•23 years ago
|
||
I routinely use the windows\hosts file to disable banner ads, perhaps not very clever, but it works. e.g. 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net Under IE this just results in empty boxes with an X and it speeds up browsing and reduces irritating GIFs, but with Mozilla I have to press OK on every error!! I think the empty image placeholder with a simple "missing" message is a good compromise - letting most users know something is missing but in my case knowing why so I can ignore it.
Comment 51•23 years ago
|
||
Neil Munro and others: Workaround: Install a http proxy locally (and possibly let it do the blocking, which probably works better than the hosts entries, because you can use regexps) and let Mozilla use that. The proxy then delivers a such an error page to Mozilla, which displays it in the iframe. All works fine for me (with Squid). Of course that might be a lot of work on your side and have other disadvantages, just wanted to note it. I agree that this bug should be fixed.
Comment 52•23 years ago
|
||
Another workaround is to route the annoying servers to 127.0.0.1, and to set up a local web server to prevent the "cannot connect" dialogs. If the annoying sites you're blocking are pop-up advertisements, you can even set up your server to send this in its 404 response: <script>if (window==top) { window.close(); }</script>
Comment 53•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 98831 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 54•23 years ago
|
||
Tim Hill - are you still working on this? Here's my suggested implementation On an error, Mozilla generates an XML fragment like so: <?xml version="1.0"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="chrome://global/skin/error.xsl"?> <!-- type indicates general area of error --> <error type="Network|Offline|XMLParse|Internal"> <offline reason="Unavailable"/> <network type="HTTP" code="404"> <!-- if site provided it's own page, that goes here --> </network> <network type="DNS" problem="lookup:failed"/> <xmlParse type="entity-not-found"> <uri>http://microsoft.com/home.xml</uri> <line>64</line> <column>12</column> </xmlParse> </error> or whatever, obviously there'd only be one child node in the error XML. That XML is then transformed by Transformiix into lovely XHTML which describes the error, alows you to retry etc. comments? thanks -mike
Comment 55•23 years ago
|
||
> That XML is then transformed by Transformiix
Transformixx is optional, you can't use it for such a central function.
Comment 56•23 years ago
|
||
See also bug 20838, [RFE] Unreachable server should cause cached data to be displayed. The placeholder page could include something like "You visited this page 2 days ago, and a saved copy is available in Mozilla's cache. <button>View _c_ached copy</button>" when an unreachable page is cached.
Comment 57•23 years ago
|
||
Well I suppose we could just use DOM transforms then, but XSLT would be better. Why is Transformiix optional? Do you mean in different distributions? As it is so useful I can't see why people wouldn't want it, but ok then, if XSLT is out, then DOM code will have to do. More work though :( Apart from that, is this workable?
Comment 58•23 years ago
|
||
> Why is Transformiix optional?
It lives in extensions and the rule is that nothing of the browser must depend
on anything in extensions, because the one compiling has the option to switch
any of that off (and the app should still work, of course). Let's say Mandrake
decides not to turn Transformiix on, it shouldn't be surprised by bug reports of
disfunctional error msgs.
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0]
Comment 59•23 years ago
|
||
Time to move it to components/ then...
Comment 60•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 91469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 61•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 103962 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 62•23 years ago
|
||
Please also read my comments in bug 103962 (marked cuplicate of this one) I'd like it if there would be a "Javascript console" like thingy for this error. It could be made to automatically popup, or to show an icon in the statusbar if anything goes wrong when trying to load anything from anywhere. The same goes for mail/news they have the same kind error messages and you have to click them away before you can read mail. I love to be notified of errors, but they shouldn't be so prominent and oblitory to look at.
Comment 63•23 years ago
|
||
Ok, here we go, I got it.. Somebody could hack this over the weekend.. Take the history Sidebar, rename it something like inaccessable DNS site.. (history already updates and keeps track of dns entries for sites you visit) Hack the code so that you can change a pref to make the dialog box info update into the sidebar instead new sidebar should show site, erronous DNS errors that are normal dialog popups.. like cannot connect to site X, with seperator for other types of error blocks 1) Mail/News errors.. 2) DNS site errors 3) Cannot find server X 4) other. I also agree we could hack the JS Console to do the same thing as it also keeps track and dumps to the console when there is an error.. shouldn't be that tough to get this built. and you can take care of the error by just clicking on like how the messages keep track of read/unread by click or by keyboard navigation over the error. .. walla... we have a error page and no more dialogs.. and I can click on them anytime (tooltips needed as well).. which all leads to a better end-user experience!! -dman84
Comment 64•23 years ago
|
||
Ick. I never use the Sidebar, and I find anything which automatically pops it up to be an extreme pain in the ass. Don't bring the Sidebar into this.
Comment 65•23 years ago
|
||
Well, then hack the JS console and the dialog event/alert/warning handler to send the messages to the new Website Error Console.. that is what most people want right?
Comment 66•23 years ago
|
||
cuz84d: you're looking for bug 80293, a console for networking errors. This bug is for placeholder pages.
Comment 67•23 years ago
|
||
ok, its close.. but I'll head over to it.
Comment 68•23 years ago
|
||
I presume currently we are talking about error message on *any* inaccessible object, not only inaccessible frame / page, correct? Should be, since my bug #68325 on any inaccessible object was marked as duplicate of this one. Are we going to have error console, then? Personally, the most important thing is that the error message box is modal. Just make it non modal will help a lot. Error console will be great. Having the error console on the sidebar will be nice, but should not be necessity (some people turn off their sidebar - I do). Will this make it to 1.0? Thanks.
Comment 69•23 years ago
|
||
As I understand it, the current plan is to replace the error alert you currently get when trying to access an inaccessible page/frame with an error page. This would occur in place of the content. This behaviour would be the same as IE (except without the redirection to MSN). For example, say you go to the non-existent site www.nonexistentdomain.com. Currently Mozilla displays a modal error message. The plan is to put an error page in the content area instead. Another example would be going to a page with an <iframe> containing an ad from www.thisadservergoesdownmoreoftenthanafrenchcrackwhore.com. If the ad server is down then Mozilla will display the error page in the <iframe> rather than popping up a modal dialogue as it currently does. At this time there is no intention to replace server-generated error pages (404s etc.), just errors that occur when a page/frame is inaccessible (server down, non-existent domain name, connection refused etc.). I'm not sure where all this console stuff came from.
Comment 70•23 years ago
|
||
Console suggestions should go to bug 80293.
Comment 71•23 years ago
|
||
Alex, The console stuff came from: A: didn't realize there was a Console Bug 80239 B: suggestion to use a JS like console for all dialog error replacement C: use a hacked sidebar for the same thing D: it was a suggestion to tackle this one instead of an error page.. (consolodate all dialog popup messages that affect user to more friendly) E: Trying to get people to decide on something.. F: I cant think of F G: hope to just see what kinda feedback it gets in terms of prefered fixage. -dennis
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0] [Aufbau-P2]
Comment 72•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 107252 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0] [Aufbau-P2] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0]
Comment 73•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 74•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 75•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 76•23 years ago
|
||
Place netError.xul and netError.js in your dist/bin/chrome/toolkit/content/global directory or jar-file. I added a method to nsDocShell.cpp, LoadXULErrorPage(errorType, url) which is called in the appropriate places if the pref "browser.xul.error.pages.enabled" is true. The following cases are handled: (nsDocShell.cpp) Protocol not found, Denied Port Access (nsWebShell.cpp) File Not Found, DNS Not Found, Connection Failure, Net Timeout
Comment 77•23 years ago
|
||
Adding keywords to get people's attention, removing target since it's gone already. Anybody care to nominate this for a 0.9er? mpt, want to work with Martin to get this done? Seems like he's got some headway into it already
Comment 78•23 years ago
|
||
Shouldn't this page use the search engine that the user has selected in the preferences? Also, "Google this URL" isn't exactly a professional looking button.
Comment 79•23 years ago
|
||
Very true, neither are the error-messages. If people like it, it is a simple matter of adding localization files and some icons to have a usable solution. This solution is however very crude compared to what Tim Hill wrote in his comment, however he doesn't seem to be work on this given his absence from bugzilla. (Adding me to CC-list).
Comment 80•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 81•23 years ago
|
||
Nobody wants the modal windows but i think nobody wants to be forced to go to a mozilla/netscape site and waste our time and bandwidth seeing stuff we dont want. We want to see a very simple LOCAL page displaying the error message.
Comment 82•23 years ago
|
||
No, I'd rather not be redirected to a page on netscape.com or mozilla.org. Most of the time I get a placeholder page, it's either because - my uplink is having trouble, or - I misspelled part of the URL and am already in the process of correcting it.
Comment 83•23 years ago
|
||
You'd have to talk to marketing, which is not strongly present here. From mozilla's standpoint, I think many contributors are concerned about creating features that hard-code privacy disclosures. We already have that problem with internet keywords, which sends people to a search engine on the network when they they type a single word in "Location". The page that is generated on search.netscape.com means that Netscape gets to log every one of these queries.
Comment 84•23 years ago
|
||
==== From Alex Bishop 2001-10-23 08:34: the current plan is to replace the error alert you currently get when trying to access an inaccessible page/frame with an error page. ==== Is is mean that this bug only deals with inaccessible *page*? Is it mean that this bug doesn't deal with inaccessible objects (images and other embedded objects)? Should bug #68325 (about modal error page on inaccessible images) be reopened? If this bug (28586) doesn't deal with inaccessible objects, apparently reassigning bug #68325 as duplicate of this bug is an error. Thanks.
Comment 85•23 years ago
|
||
Arif, inaccessible images don't produce an error dialog at all, at least not using Mac/2001101117. If you are able to reproduce such a problem, please reopen the bug you refer to and provide detailed information.
Comment 86•23 years ago
|
||
Don't images produce an error message if they come from a third-party server?
Comment 87•23 years ago
|
||
No. Please review my comments of 2001-05-15 15:59 on this bug.
Comment 88•23 years ago
|
||
I'm really interested in fixing this. However I'd like to know if this way of solving it is sufficient or how I should enhance it. The idea of an nsIErrorService appeals to me but that would broaden the scope drastically. What data do we need to pass to the xul dialogs? Is there a better way of passing data (errorType, URI, ...) to a XUL document when loading it via LoadURI similar to window.open?
Comment 89•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 100135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 90•23 years ago
|
||
Martin, dont know who knows that info, maybe Blake, he knows the XUL and stuff..
Comment 91•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 111739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 92•23 years ago
|
||
Can this bug be targetted to something other than New? With the increasing use of ad blockers, firewalls, etc., this is quite a turn-off.
Comment 93•23 years ago
|
||
try this in 2001-11-25.. w2K I see the message for a HTTP 404-Not Found Item.. ------- The system cannot find the file specified. - The Tab's Title is: Error ------- At least some dialog is gone.. woohoo!!!!
Comment 94•23 years ago
|
||
scratch that: Must be a fluke: Darn: URL I tried: no icon showed on URL bar either when I first tried. http://www.devgames.com/GlideUnderground/
Comment 95•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 113093 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 96•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 114722 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 97•23 years ago
|
||
This is causing huge problems for us with K-Meleon. Since K-Meleon has pop-up and domain blocking settings in our Preferences, we have a lot of people who use the feature to block ads, etc. But they are getting overwhelmed with dialog boxes from the blocked sites. It's really an issue that needs to be addressed quickly.
Comment 98•23 years ago
|
||
I don't think this is a good idea. What if a frame whose server could not be found (for which now a dialog pops up) is rather narrow, so that the error page could not be completely displayed?
Comment 99•23 years ago
|
||
This would be a bad design from the site. Anyway, you can always make the frame full page if you want to see the error message.
Comment 100•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 117279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Keywords: helpwanted
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate]
Comment 101•23 years ago
|
||
"The connection was refused when attempting to connect to ads.web.aol.com." A 9920 line file on my system "hosts"- see <http://www.smartin-designs.com/>) contains in part: 127.0.0.1 ads.web.aol.com These popups (on eBay search results) I have no need to see over and over and over and over and over and over, much less ever at all. I have to click OK three times on each page. Make them go away. This wasn't happening with release 0.9.7. Votes now showing: 49. Mine makes 50.
Keywords: mozilla1.0
Comment 102•23 years ago
|
||
Chris, regarding comment #98 that is really about bug 80293, get those over to a new tab, or console, while this bug is really about not find websites in general.
Comment 103•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 124086 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 104•23 years ago
|
||
Gee. Can we all stop talking about it and just fix the damn thing? This is a real pain and ANYTHING would be better than that stupid dialog box Even no warning at all would be better (configuarable by a pref of course). This should DEFINITELY by fixed by 1.0
Blocks: advocacybugs
Comment 105•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 124145 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 106•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 124420 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 107•23 years ago
|
||
Gagan, darin, can you guys skim for content here and give advice on whether and how to fix this bug? Thanks. /be
Comment 108•23 years ago
|
||
fwiw wgate currently has a very ugly hack which results in error pages instead of error dialogs. However thanks in part to mpt and other things I'm going to have to add extra ugly code to distinguish between javascript alerts and netwerk errors. We really want an error service but would be happy if the default implementation just threw up an alert.
Comment 109•23 years ago
|
||
We have an outstanding Penzilla bug that would be satisifed by this RFE. I'm in support of the mozilla1.0 nomination. Adding myself to the cc list.
Keywords: oeone
Comment 110•23 years ago
|
||
The patch is old and full of evil tabs. Can someone refresh it and make it all righteous and good? /be
Comment 111•23 years ago
|
||
I updated the patch from attachment 55657 [details] [diff] [review] to apply cleanly to the current trunk and to use "unified" diff format. I did it purely "syntactically" - I haven't even checked whether it compiles.
Attachment #55657 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 112•23 years ago
|
||
Updated attachment 55659 [details] to be free of "evil tabs".
Attachment #55659 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 113•23 years ago
|
||
Updated attachment 55660 [details] to get rid of "evil tabs".
Attachment #55660 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 114•23 years ago
|
||
use NS_LITERAL_STRING instead of NS_ConvertASCIIToUCS2 for literals, that's much faster if supported
Comment 115•23 years ago
|
||
-> docshell
Assignee: neeti → adamlock
Component: Networking → Embedding: Docshell
QA Contact: benc → adamlock
Comment 116•23 years ago
|
||
just curious if there is a UI for this error page around here? Do we wanna copy MS's error page like in IE4.0? dunno about newer versions of IE at the moment.
Comment 117•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 127264 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 118•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 112598 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 119•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 127598 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 120•23 years ago
|
||
Will this patch be compatible with embedding apps?
Comment 121•23 years ago
|
||
It should be compatible with embedding apps. Because it checks the "browser.xul.error.pages.enabled" pref first, alerts though nsIPromptService are still possible. An application could choose not to show the pref to the user and just hardwire it to false if they wanted. But, bailing on failing to get the pref isn't good. + rv = mPrefs->GetBoolPref("browser.xul.error.pages.enabled", &errorPagesEnabled); + if (NS_FAILED(rv)) return rv; That means that, assuming an embedding app is using its own default prefs, if it doesn't contain this pref, this code will just fail without doing anything. Can you instead treat failure to get the pref as FALSE?
Comment 122•23 years ago
|
||
Probably re-introducing a lot of evil tabs (Emacs is probably too smart for me and I couldn't find any FAQ or coding style guide right now, so here we go). Anyway, this applies cleanly to the trunk and actually works.
Comment 123•23 years ago
|
||
+ nsAutoString errorPageUrl; + errorPageUrl.AssignWithConversion("chrome://global/content/netError.xul?uri="); Why don't you use nsAutoString errorPageUrl(NS_LITERAL_STRING("chrome://global/content/netError.xul?uri=")); ? At least use errorPageUrl.Assign(NS_LITERAL_STRING("chrome://global/content/netError.xul?uri="));
Comment 124•23 years ago
|
||
This should be fixed as soon as possible, as some folks prefer to redirect advertising hosts to localhost where there may not be a server running.
Comment 125•23 years ago
|
||
Patch exists. Nominating for nsbeta1. Adding embed keyword on basis of comment 97. Actual behavior: Error alerts for inaccessible pages are modal dialogs. Expected behavior: Error alerts for inaccessible pages are error pages.
Comment 126•23 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 97641 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 127•22 years ago
|
||
minusing nsbeta1 as I don't think the next NS beta release has this change in the works. adding topembed nomination keyword as this is something some embeddors indeed need. will consider topembed+ once patch has made it's round of reviews.
Comment 128•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 129681 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 129•22 years ago
|
||
This is what you get if you hit IE's Stop button.. I'd say mozilla would look good with something similar.
Comment 130•22 years ago
|
||
Please don't copy the Internet Explorer error pages! They are designed very badly, because the important message (i.e. error code and explaining message) is at the very bottom of the page (if the window is too small, one has to scroll down to see it) and it's in the smallest font. If you want to write an essay, what 404 means and what one can do about it, that's fine. But copy the text after the important error summary ("404 file not found").
Comment 131•22 years ago
|
||
Raphael, DON'T SPAM the bug report. The issue was already brought up in this bug. Use newsgroups for discussion. This bug is long enough.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Comment 132•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 131215 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 133•22 years ago
|
||
qa to me: Do people think that fixing 111904 would be a good solution if we do not fix this bug? If so, go in that bug and vote, or comment if you have something constructive to add (no "me too!" comments). spam isn't the problem, its the duplicate count. I don't suppose anyone would like to look through all the dupe's activity reports and find out where they are coming from? Probably networking. I am thinking about creating a "trap" bug in Networking that has a subject that will tell people, "yes we figured out this a problem, no you should not file another duplicate..."
QA Contact: adamlock → benc
Comment 134•22 years ago
|
||
Benjamin Chuang: for me just fixing the 'site not found' dialog would be a partial anoyance fixer, but not solve the main problem i currently have with mozilla. We are trying out mozilla on internet kiosks, web pads and top set boxes, and most of these 'embeded' style devices usualy try to avoid anything 'window manager' like. Dialog boxes are evil and reserved for fatal errors Also dialog boxes for 'could not connect' or 'site not found', etc are questionable in use. They give feedback, but do not 'dialog' (there is no option, its just a information notice). The main window is a perfect place for giving this information (for less important things one uses the status bar) Only if an error is fatal 'Mozilla will self destruct now', should one be tempted to use a dialog box ;-)
Comment 135•22 years ago
|
||
(I'm just trying to get as much done for 1.0. If it misses 1.0, then a lot of people who want to build off of it will need to grab a pile of patches. Every missed fix will be a pain that grows linearly.)
Comment 136•22 years ago
|
||
which is the core reason I still am seeing regressions that are not helping moz1.0, and think we should give it a few more weeks.. there is already a patch here, has anyone tried it.. or does it need more work? -dman84
Comment 137•22 years ago
|
||
Has patch, highly desired, useful for embedders. Adding mozilla1.0+ keyword to see if we can find reviewers and testers.
Keywords: mozilla1.0 → mozilla1.0+
Comment 138•22 years ago
|
||
With regards comment 133, I've looked through all the dupe activity reports. Out of the 31 dupes, 16 started life as Browser-General, 8 as Networking (3 of these Networking:HTTP), 5 as User Interface Design, 1 as Preferences, and 1 as Security:General. Hope that helps. I can upload the gory details if required, although I guess/hope this bug is going to close soon.
Comment 139•22 years ago
|
||
adding self to cc list
Updated•22 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate][MB]
Updated•22 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate][MB] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate][MB][WTFATCA]
Comment 140•22 years ago
|
||
I tried testing this but I couldn't since I don't know where to put the new files (I don't have a dist/ directory until after building, obviously...). Could we have a single -uN diff that has the files in the right place?
Whiteboard: [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate][MB][WTFATCA] → [Hixie-P0][Hixie-1.0][wgate][MB]
Comment 141•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 136889 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 142•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 138411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 143•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 55788 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 144•22 years ago
|
||
The webshell/docshell patch looks okay to me, but please resubmit a clean version against the trunk for review. Also include any patches needed to the chrome & makefiles required to report the error. docshell/webshell are a mess of error reporting code, so there may be future scope for splitting this out into a service but don't concern yourself with that for now.
Comment 145•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 143523 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 146•22 years ago
|
||
I think the patch for docshell/webshell cannot work with the current trunk. It needs some updates (which I'm not able to do by myself :-)).
Comment 147•22 years ago
|
||
I use AdShield to block access to sites such as ad.uk.doubleclick.net who supply advertising material. At present I receive an Alert dialogue from Mozilla whenever Adshield blocks access; this can sometimes occur two or three times on a single web page. You now seem to be discussing whether to continue to hit me with the dialogue or with an error page. Well, I'd prefer neither, thank you kindly, not when access has been blocked on my instruction. May I suggest a mere message in the status bar when page elements fail to load in this way?
Comment 148•22 years ago
|
||
bertknight@hotmail.com, you have the same problem I have except I use the hosts file to do that job. Getting rid of the modal dialog is bug 111904, which this has been marked to depend on.
Comment 149•22 years ago
|
||
Bert, Mozilla has no way to know whether you decided to block the or if it's unreachable because of another reason. Therefore it displays the dialog. Use another way to get rid of banners, or wait until this bug is fixed, thank you kindly.
Comment 150•22 years ago
|
||
For the time being, I recommend bannerblind for you. http://bannerblind.mozdev.org/
Comment 151•22 years ago
|
||
bannerblind doesn't solve the problem. URL: http://www.voyages-sncf.com/ So, this bug should really be fixed.
Comment 152•22 years ago
|
||
It does for me, just add the size of the banner to bannerblind and all is well.
Comment 153•22 years ago
|
||
[OT] The size is ticked and BannerBlind is enabled. So, it seems to be a bug in BannerBlind. I'm going to report a bug on mozdev.org.
Comment 154•22 years ago
|
||
Not a BB bug. It doesn't block IFRAMEs, and that page contains one. Let's keep the comment traffic down on this bug. It's too long as it is. Take it to the newsgroups, please.
Comment 155•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 111904 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 156•22 years ago
|
||
Now that bug Bug 111904 has been duped to this, this needs to be changed from enhancement to major or worse. Modal dialogs should not be popping up on blocked inline elements.
Comment 157•22 years ago
|
||
IMO we're getting sidetracked quote a bit.. Please read the original comment. This bug is about the modal diagog that pops up for _any_ error. This includes completes pages that can't be opened. Besides that; who is working on this or will work on this? And what happened to Tim (comment #45)? There are a lot of perfectly good suggestions in this bug so a lot more discussion is just a wast of time :D Could someone just write this patch? :D *grin* Anyway, in the meantime it would help a _lot_ if someone could make the dialogs non-modal. This modality lead me into thinking that mozilla became inresponsive quite a few times. Pretty annoying. So IMO this bug is about getting totally rid of the modal dialog, not just removing it in case of failing inline elements. Oh, about the banner removal stuff, IMHO it's just plain theft.. How are website owners supposed to generate any revenue if everyone is just scrapping their ads? Websites cost money you know :D Anyway, back to the bug... I vote for upgrading this bug too. 'enhancement' just doesn't do right to this. It's one of the most duplicated bugs and we have 81 votes already.
Comment 158•22 years ago
|
||
this bug _is_ an enhancement, even though it prevents some people from using a completely inappropriate method for blocking ads. mozilla behaves perfectly correct even without this bugfix.
Comment 159•22 years ago
|
||
Retargetting. I'm looking at this at the moment.
Target Milestone: Future → mozilla1.1alpha
Comment 160•22 years ago
|
||
Bug 111904 had keywords mozilla1.0, nsbeta1, review, and should have had 4xp and regression. Before late November when 111904 was filed, modals were not blocking browser progress. Until Mozilla is ready for full prime time displacement of other browsers, users have to do whatever works with the other browsers. People who want to use both at once are forced to choose between fighting modals in Mozilla, or having to navigate with nothing blocked in the others. Note http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111904#c9 and http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111904#c14 The attitude that current behavior in Mozilla is correct needs to be shelved until these hurdles are overcome.
Comment 161•22 years ago
|
||
I don't think it is only an enhancement. When the domain of a banner can't be reached (this can happen even when the user doesn't block ads), this may make browsing almost impossible under some conditions. Mozilla should behave in a sensible way.
Comment 162•22 years ago
|
||
This is not going to make it into 1.0 because the change is too substantial. The current plan is to merge & update the patch against this bug with the one in bug 111904.
Comment 163•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 111904 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 164•22 years ago
|
||
I would like to add that this error is not only relivant for people who blackhole certain (doubleclick) sites. I use mozilla quite a bit on embeded en kiosk style devices, and the combined strenght of tabs + mozilla's good support make it a real strong combination. However dialog boxes are a evil, evil thing on kiosks or embeded devices. (It confuses the **** out of a user if modal dialog boxes pop up, specialy since it is the only dialog box they will ever run into on those devices) To be able to completly hide the window manager from the user, it is a nescisaty to display these errors in a page, and not using dialog boxes. Since the faulty (misspelled or non existing URL's) user input is the top most cause for 'errors' on these devices, this makes it a very hot topic for anyone in that field. Just my 2 Euro cents ;-)
Comment 165•22 years ago
|
||
Possible easy fix: Add checkbox to dialog box "Close All" - to close all error dialogs opend during next 5 seconds Add checkbox "Show more errors for this site" - to solve problem with banner server unreach. -- Making HTML like error page is a bad solution. (I'm using squid - so know what is html error page is). It must be something else. For example [x] - box with red cross or some image(s) and pop-uped description about error on mouse over. (you can't read error responce if HTML error page is inside 33x70 banner). It must be something, you can't spoof(emulate) with HTML page on site.
Comment 166•22 years ago
|
||
I think some HTML code should be generated and display should be controled with CSS (and/or JavaScript). As a user, I'm not interested in the error message, in particular when it is about an advert.
Comment 167•22 years ago
|
||
In reference to comment 147 and all subsequent comments regarding popups for inaccessible banner ads, an inaccessible banner ad should not show as an error page but as a broken image placeholder (bug 41924).
Comment 168•22 years ago
|
||
Re: comment 167 Many ads are not just images, but iframes. Therefore, bug 41924 is irrelevant.
Comment 169•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 147203 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 170•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 147329 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 171•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 147602 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 172•22 years ago
|
||
This patch is still work in progress. It works more or less but there are some gnarly issues as to how the error page looks and how docshell passes stuff like error codes and so forth to the page. First a description of what has been done: 1. Docshell now has a variable mUseErrorPages, set from pref "browser.xul.error.pages.enabled" to determines whether to display popup errors or error pages. 2. If set to true, error pages are displayed and calls are made to the LoadErrorPage function in nsDocShell. 3. Docshell loads netError.xhtml from chrome with the error code and URL as arguments. 4. netError.xhtml splits out the error code and URL and displays a page appropriate for the error. Error text is locale specific and contained in netError.dtd. Now the problems: 1. To keep netError.xhtml locale neutral, all the error strings and descriptions are in netError.dtd which netError.xhtml pulls in as its dtd. This means I can insert strings from netError.dtd into the page. In theory I should also be able to insert entities dynamically (e.g. &dnsFailure.shortDesc;) into a text node and they should expand it out. Unfortunately, entities are not being expanded when I do this. Only static entities are expanded, not ones I insert dynamically via js. Any ideas? 2. Webshell & docshell display error popups with formatted message strings. I want to provide similar behaviour in the netError.xhtml so there may be need to be further reworking to how strings are supplied and formatted. 3. nsDocShell::GetPromptAndStringBundle should probably be split into two methods. There is no point grabbing the prompt service if it's not going to get used. 4. appstrings.properties and netError.dtd should really be consolidated somehow. appstrings.properties should be moved into the new docshell/resources/locale/en-US dir I have created for this work. The LoadErrorPage method has an arg to accept a short error description but current ignores it. 5. The URL for the error page appears in the location bar. I should find a way to suppress this, e.g. not set currentURI when loading the error URL.
Attachment #69999 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #70000 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #70001 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #71771 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 173•22 years ago
|
||
Patch contains a new nsDocShell::DisplayLoadError that consolidates all the error code into a single method. Now nsWebShell etc. call this one method rather than displaying their own error messages. This makes things much, much cleaner. I've changed all %s in appstrings.properties to %S so the formatting for various error strings is shared rather than being multiple implementations.. I've also changed the format for the formatting of error/url/descriptions in the netError.xhtml URL to be more CGI-like. This enables me to pass the short description of the error through to the page. Problems still outstanding: 1. How to expand entities. I'm setting a text node's value to "&dnsLookup.longDesc;" (for example) but the entity is not being expanded out. I want it to expand to the value that it's meant to be as defined in the DTD. How do I do this? 2. Suppress the current URI. The current URI should not be changed when I display the error page. Mozilla should display the "bad" url in the location bar. 3. Tweaks to the xhtml/js. I don't care what this page looks like from a wording/stylistic point of view, but I need to ensure the mechanisms behind it are sound enough that other people can improve it as they deem necessary.
Attachment #85306 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
The entity-support in our DOM is pretty weak so I would suggest that you put the strings in a .properties file instead of a .dtd file and use js to insert them.
Updated•22 years ago
|
Summary: [RFE] Should use error page, not dialog, for inaccessible pages (placeholder) → [RFE] Should use error page and not dialog for inaccessible pages (placeholder)
Comment 175•22 years ago
|
||
I was wondering why this bug is marked as an enhancement and targeted for 1.1alpha. It is a _very_ annoying bug for people with dialup or independable connections. I got my girlfriend to using Mozilla, and she likes it a lot (no popups and virusses!), but she is ready to go back to IE because of it.
Comment 176•22 years ago
|
||
Re: comment #175 First of all, this is not a discussion forum, or IOW, it's not for whining. > I was wondering why this bug is marked as an enhancement Because inaccessible pages get an error message dialog. Now, people want it enhanced, as a error *page*. Makes sense, huh? > and targeted for 1.1alpha. - Because it's too late for 1.0 (which is "literally finished" now, should be either late this week or early next week) - because, afaict, there is no full (as in, 0. doesn't need work 1. reviewed, 2. super-reviewed and 3. approved) patch yet - because 1.0.x will mostly fix bugs and not add functionality, as its common with 3rd level version changes > It is a _very_ annoying bug for people with dialup or independable connections. Vote for it. > I got my girlfriend to using Mozilla, and she likes it a lot (no popups and > virusses!), Yeah, but see, that won't help fix this bug. > but she is ready to go back to IE because of it. And that won't either. That's why we do not tend to appreciate "FIX THIS OR I'LL RETURN TO <browser xyz>!", and not "THIS KEEPS ME FROM USING MOZILLA!" comments. Just my 2 cents, and please don't spam this bug any more (there seem to be roughly 100 cc's), kay? :-)
Comment 177•22 years ago
|
||
> > I was wondering why this bug is marked as an enhancement > Because inaccessible pages get an error message dialog. Now, people want it > enhanced, as a error *page*. Makes sense, huh? Please refer to comment 160, and bug 111904, which was major and then duped to this. This bug too should be major, as well as regression, since before last November, modal dialogs were not being popped up due to unreachable embedded elements. Bug 111904 should be unduped and fixed. There should not be an error page displayed due to unreachable elements.
Comment 178•22 years ago
|
||
Putting up an error dialog instead of an error page is in no way "major loss of function". Please make comments about how to resolve other bugs in their respective bug reports.
Comment 179•22 years ago
|
||
> Putting up an error dialog instead of an error page is in
> no way "major loss of function".
It is if it's modal. I've had problems before with downloads being cancelled,
etc, because Mozilla has put up a "Can't connect to..." or "...cannot be
found..." dialog for some unrelated page while I've been away from the machine
waiting for it to finish. Usually happens when (has little to do with this bug,
sadly) the mail client can't poll my mail server, but also happens if I have a
auto-reloading frame in another tab, such as the Salon front page.
If I can't download something unattended without closing all other tabs, and if
I had mail and news open, exiting the browser completely and restarting, then
I'm experiencing "major loss of function." I reckon so, anyway.
Comment 180•22 years ago
|
||
Sorry for the extra chatter, but I just filed Bug 149037 as an intermediary step, that might cut down some of the annoyance of this bug.
Comment 181•22 years ago
|
||
If a modal dialog is affecting other network activity, that would be a separate defect, please file a separate bug.
Comment 182•22 years ago
|
||
modal alert dialog in any window blocks necko for all windows http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74331
Comment 183•22 years ago
|
||
Re: comment 178: I hope your comment didn't refer to my comment 177. When I start loading a page in Mozilla and immediately leave Mozilla to work in another app while the page loads, Mozilla should not steal focus from the other app to display: "The connection was refused when attempting to contact ad.doubleclick.net." This amounts to major loss of function. Mozilla should never steal focus from another app." I don't know whether such theft is this bug, another bug like bug 111904, or needs a bug, but needless focus theft *certainly* is major loss of function.
Comment 184•22 years ago
|
||
Wouter: To add a little to what Chucker said to you, which I viewed as maybe a tad harsh. Each developer has a ton of bugs they are working on. This problem might seem like the end of the world to you, but be assured - for the general public, there are much bigger issues. We understand the fixing of this bug means a lot to you, but there are also other bugs where people feel just as strongly as you do about this bug. You might want to consider the security issues of IE before your girlfriend goes back to it: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/05/148244&mode=thread&tid=109 IE has terrible security issues, and Mozilla's security is tight. I consider that a bigger problem than this issue since it could allow someone to get into your hard drive.
Comment 185•22 years ago
|
||
mrmazda, yes, that is a bug, _but a seperate one_
Comment 186•22 years ago
|
||
If that is the case, then bug 126906 should not have been duped to bug 111904. Bug 126906 reopened and probably depends on this.
Blocks: 126906
Comment 187•22 years ago
|
||
The first phase is ready for review I believe. What it does: 1. Cleans up webshell and docshell error handling A LOT. All error reporting happens via nsDocShell::DisplayLoadError now. 2. Stops error messages appearing on IFRAMEs for the common errors (unknown host & connection refused). 3. Enables error pages if "browser.xul.error.pages.enabled" is set to true. 4. Has basic error pages. I would like this to be reviewed and checked in before refining the behaviour and to give the code a chance to soak. Phase 2 can be: 1. Putting a default pref and UI to control which behaviour to use. 2. Resolving a few issues in the error pages: a) Put some decent Plain English(tm) descriptions into the error pages b) Can the error URL be suppressed somehow c) What to do when user disables JS (error page is unprivileged XHTML) d) Hardcoded link to saerch google is a bit nasty Reviews please?
Attachment #85472 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 188•22 years ago
|
||
Keyword changes: adding review; removing mozilla1.0+ since this obviously didn't make it; adding mozilla1.1.
Comment 189•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 149978 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 190•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 150549 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 191•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 151075 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 192•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 152687 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 193•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 155600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 194•22 years ago
|
||
5 more dupes on this since Adam asked for review. Is this the most duped bug ever? Anyways, who need to review/super-review this patch and get it in?
Comment 195•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 86662 [details] [diff] [review] Patch r= radha . I guess you could suppress urlbar update and back/forward button update by checking for this error url in nsDocShell::SetCurrentURI() and preventing a call to onLocationChange(). I'm not sure what happens to the throbber in this case, sicne onLocationChange() handles the throbber, back/forward buttons and the urlbar.
Attachment #86662 -
Flags: review+
Comment 196•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 86662 [details] [diff] [review] Patch r= radha . I guess you could suppress urlbar update and back/forward button update by checking for this error url in nsDocShell::SetCurrentURI() and preventing a call to onLocationChange(). I'm not sure what happens to the throbber in this case, sicne onLocationChange() handles the throbber, back/forward buttons and the urlbar.
Comment 197•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 86662 [details] [diff] [review] Patch sr=rpotts@netscape.com This looks like a great start! let's get it in and start shaving off the rough edges :-)
Attachment #86662 -
Flags: superreview+
Comment 198•22 years ago
|
||
Looks great - cleans things up a lot. You need to add some code to http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/build/mac/build_scripts/MozillaBuildList.pm#529 so that the contents of docshell/resources get built on the Mac.
Comment 199•22 years ago
|
||
I'll do a fresh patch against the trunk, including the mac/unix build changes, verify it builds on all platforms and submit for approval. As stated previously you'll need to set a pref to enable the error pages since this patch is more about cleaning up error reporting docshell in preparation for further work. Stage 2 will have to deal with the issues I listed (and others?) before it can be enabled by default.
Comment 200•22 years ago
|
||
Same as before with one makefile.win fix and the mac build changes at the end. Still to verify on mac...
Attachment #86662 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #90804 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #90804 -
Flags: review+
Comment 201•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 90804 [details] [diff] [review] Updated patch Carrying r/sr forward
Comment 202•22 years ago
|
||
Verifying patch works on win32, unix & mac.
Target Milestone: mozilla1.1alpha → mozilla1.1beta
Comment 203•22 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 90804 [details] [diff] [review] Updated patch a=asa (on behalf of drivers) for checkin to the 1.1 trunk.
Attachment #90804 -
Flags: approval+
Comment 204•22 years ago
|
||
The first patch is checked in. To try out error pages, edit your all.js prefs file and add this line. pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", true); You will immediately note that the error pages are basic. We still need someone from usability or UI design to flesh these out and make them look nice and informative. We also need to sort out some other issues which I mentioned previously. The error page and code is in mozilla/docshell/resources. It is unprivileged XHTML so it will run in iframes without security issues so please bear that in mind. This bug is painfully large already so please RAISE A NEW BUG that blocks this one for each issue so it gets the proper focus. Once error page support is in a decent state this bug will be marked fixed.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 205•22 years ago
|
||
Adam, can that pref alternatively be put in user.js?
Comment 206•22 years ago
|
||
You can either put the pref in your profile's prefs.js, or into mozilla/default/prefs/all.js. If you prefer you can put it into user.js but you may have to create that file.
Comment 207•22 years ago
|
||
I just filed a new bug introduced by this patch - bug 157102: Back to error page crashes the browser.
Comment 208•22 years ago
|
||
This is working with MFCEmbed July 12, 2002 nightly. Nice work Adam! I'm not seeing the crash on back button bug reported in: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157102 with MFCEmbed. It does require two clicks of the back button to get back past the error message. Also, that message does not redisplay when going back through the history. I believe Adam is looking to keep the error message out of the browser history anyways, so I don't think that issue needs any extra attention.
Comment 209•22 years ago
|
||
Yea, nsIWebNavigation::LOAD_FLAGS_BYPASS_HISTORY won't bypass the page from history when you use the back button. I think it might just be a matter of playing w/ the right load flags. 0.02c --pete
Comment 210•22 years ago
|
||
fyi, I've put up the pref for enabling this on my website <http://www.geocities.com/pratiksolanki/> to get broader testing. If you think its better not to put it up, let me know and I'll remove it.
Comment 211•22 years ago
|
||
I tried the placeholder feature with 2002 071208. Comments: 1. A chrome address appears in the url bar. Instead, the bad URL should appear in the title bar. We could hide the chrome address the same way we hide internal wyciwyg URLs in xpfe, but it might be nice to expose both the wyciwyg fixup and this fixup to embedders. 2. Bookmarking bookmarks the error page. I think the original address should be bookmarked. Another option is disabling bookmarking, but I prefer bookmarking the original address because Ctrl+D is normally silent and would fail silently if the menu item were disabled. (This is also an issue with wyciwyg URLs!) 3. Hitting Reload should try again. 4. The Try Again link should not add an entry to session history. 5. "Search for this address" should be "Search Google for www.foo.com". (The location bar dropdown uses this text.) 6. The search link should use the search URL the browser would use. Can you call OpenSearch in navigator.js? 7. The search link should be a real link so that open link in new window and visited-link coloring can work. 8. Clicking the search link and then the back button loads Java (!?) and gives me a blank, gray page. It should return me to the error page.
Comment 212•22 years ago
|
||
Is the idea to have the error pages in XHTML for now, and change them to XUL at some point?
Comment 213•22 years ago
|
||
This is a meta bug. Please open new bugs or cc yourself to those that have already been opened to deal with issues like history/reload/url issues (bug 157004) and making it look nice (bug 156997). Just to clarify the reason the page is XHTML (which is not set in stone BTW) is because it has to be capable of loading in frames and iframes. I could have used straight XUL but I thought it would look pretty stupid to have XUL in frames inside content areas. The original patch had a XUL error page and it just looked odd. I also believe there could be unforeseen security implications for running XUL in this way so I didn't want to risk it. Even if it could run it would be running with untrusted content privilege negating many of the reasons you might care to use it. If someone can come up with a compelling reason it should be XUL instead of XHTML, raise a bug and demonstrate it.
Comment 214•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 160423 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 215•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 165340 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 216•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 166343 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 217•22 years ago
|
||
Has this patch been committed to the trunk? I'm using 1.2a and I still get the modal dialog.
Comment 218•22 years ago
|
||
Anthony, you must add a hidden pref to enable it. See comment 210.
Comment 219•22 years ago
|
||
Selecting to top two lines in the error pages, and pasting them, procuce all the error messages. This is very embarassing pasting it into an "enter-commits" forum like IRC. The operation timed out when attempting to contact www.bero.org. malformedURI long description goes here. fileNotFound long description goes here. dnsNotFound long description goes here. dnsNotFound long description goes here. protocolNotFound long description goes here. connectionFailure long description goes here. netTimeout long description goes here.
Comment 221•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 25618 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Summary: [RFE] Should use error page and not dialog for inaccessible pages (placeholder) → Should use error page and not dialog for inaccessible pages (placeholder)
Comment 222•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 174911 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 223•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 175704 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 224•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 57867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 225•22 years ago
|
||
Update target milestone to 'Future' since this missed the 'mozilla1.1beta' train.
Target Milestone: mozilla1.1beta → Future
Comment 226•22 years ago
|
||
Juan: Please, do not change the target field unless you are the bug owner. Or unless he is dead... ;-)
Comment 227•22 years ago
|
||
Juan was doing me a favour by futuring some of my bugs. I don't have the time at all the moment to look at any of the error page issues, so I welcome volunteers.
Comment 228•22 years ago
|
||
topembed+ since this is one of those IE-ish things that some embeddors prefer.
Comment 229•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 177353 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•22 years ago
|
Keywords: mozilla1.1 → mozilla1.2
Comment 230•22 years ago
|
||
This can't make it to mozilla1.2. It needs to be tested in the alpha release.
Keywords: mozilla1.2 → mozilla1.3
Comment 231•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 48850 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 232•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 184168 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 233•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 184489 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 234•22 years ago
|
||
Plase add posssibility just to disable ANY alert popups about time out and alike. Why should I care if some of resources requested from current page are not available? I enter a page and in this page , let's say, there are hidden frames or any sort of stuff like this for ADS triks or so. Some of resources can't be loaded and I get 3-5 alerts "The operation timed out when ... etc. " about this wonderful events. I need than to have possibility to disable any sort of such a messages. If I'm ordinary user I do not care if this banner is not loaded. In fact for ordinary user is quite enough to have message like 404 page. If some JS files or CSS can't be loaded, than I as user can do nothing and I really do not whant to know about this. WBR
Comment 235•22 years ago
|
||
"This can't make it to mozilla1.2. It needs to be tested in the alpha release." So is it enabled for 1.3a? I've had it enabled in my own profile for months now, and while it's not perfect (history issue, hidden text issue), it's much better than having alerts pop up all over. (What's the point of having popup blocking features if the browser itself is going to popup things on you all the time?)
Comment 236•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 184841 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reporter | ||
Comment 237•22 years ago
|
||
*** Comment 234 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 238•22 years ago
|
||
Add the posibility to do a google cache search if the page is not found, unless the server returns a page saying that it was not found... Google cache is pretty usefull, even when the site has been hacked.
Comment 239•22 years ago
|
||
I've also found the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/) useful. The Google cache contains most web but only lasts a month or two and doesn't have images. The Internet Archive contains fewer pages, but has multiple versions of each page, includes images, and has archives going back to 1996.
Comment 240•22 years ago
|
||
I think that searching an internet archive or cache site when the page is not found should be a feature asked in another bug. The issue of just having a page displaying an error instead of a popup is all this bug is about. Other sugestions about searching archive.org or google.com sounds great to me but they are a different issue and another bug should be filled for that.
Comment 241•22 years ago
|
||
Besides: Some users (including me) wouldn't like it searching automatically. I hate how IE does that!
Comment 242•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 183077 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 243•22 years ago
|
||
per #204, adam, do you need help from UI to get this approved?
Comment 244•22 years ago
|
||
This bug is a meta bug waiting for all other bugs to be fixed before the pref is going to change. First and foremost I could do with an sr= for bug 156997
Updated•22 years ago
|
Summary: Should use error page and not dialog for inaccessible pages (placeholder) → Should use error page and not dialog for inaccessible pages (placeholder) (http and networking errors handling in content area)
Comment 245•22 years ago
|
||
Bug 39098 could be worked around by disabling the ability to select content from the error pages (if there is specific text that might be copied, then we could reenable selection just for those elements).
Comment 246•22 years ago
|
||
Renaming to make clear that this is a meta bug.
Summary: Should use error page and not dialog for inaccessible pages (placeholder) (http and networking errors handling in content area) → meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors
Comment 247•22 years ago
|
||
Possible bug with this feature: It seems the History of the tab is often unavailable when a network error occurs and these errors messages are displayed. Feature request: On address not found errors, the url is currently displayed as a string. Would be nice,( if the chrome address has to stay in the url bar) to have a textbox containing the problomatic url, so i can quickly modify the address. This would be exceptionally usefull, as i tend to type in the different servers , and my typing is often dyslexic. Lots of work Feature request: Have drop down box of similar address from the history.
Comment 248•22 years ago
|
||
> It seems the History of the tab is often unavailable when a network
> error occurs and these errors messages are displayed.
I can't remember a time when that HASN'T been the case for me. All history is
lost and the back button (naturally) is greyed out.
Comment 249•22 years ago
|
||
> All history is lost and the back button (naturally) is greyed out.
Correction. You CAN still go back by clicking on the Go menu and selecting the
entry at the bottom for the site you were at before. So, technically, history
is not lost. However, neither the back button nor Go -> Back work - despite the
fact that previous URL information obviously does exit.
Comment 250•22 years ago
|
||
Please remember that this feature is also used by embeddors and features that are available in Mozilla may not be available or implemented in the same way that Mozilla does. Any solution to problems needs to take that into account. I know that Adam is aware of that but its a reminder to others working on the bug.
Comment 251•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 193559 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•21 years ago
|
Summary: meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors → meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (show errors as a page in the content area)
Updated•21 years ago
|
Keywords: mozilla1.3
Comment 252•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 201869 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 253•21 years ago
|
||
I agree with everything written in comment #211 Especially the fact that I lose the URL is horrible. E.g. I type in a very long URL and just because of on incorrect character in the domain name, it's all gone and I have to type it all again. Going back to pop-ups is no solution either, as I'm using tabs a lot and if the page doesn't load in a background tab, the URL bar will be blank, so I lost the URL again. In both cases I have to start all over. Someone wrote "In case the URL must be changed...". Is that so? Why is that so? Why isn't it possible to display a page, but have a different URL in URL bar? Is this some internal limitation of the current code?
Comment 254•21 years ago
|
||
5/5 EDT triage: minusing topembed+ status. Dropping this from the radar to better focus on existing working set.
Comment 255•21 years ago
|
||
[Netscape® Communicator 4.8 : en-20020722] This bug was already there: no '4xp', and probably no 'regression' (except for comment 177...). (While I'm at it:) [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030612] Bug still there. (v1.4rc2)
Updated•21 years ago
|
Summary: meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (show errors as a page in the content area) → meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (placeholder page in the content area)
Comment 256•21 years ago
|
||
Adding bug 213757 as dependency. Any time a error page goes to load (non-existent domain, typoed local file) Firebird now completely crashes. Back to accursed popup error messages for me. Sort of makes the JS popup-window blocker pointless, eh?
Depends on: 213757
Updated•21 years ago
|
Summary: meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (placeholder page in the content area) → meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (placeholder page in the content area) (http error pages)
Comment 257•21 years ago
|
||
Heh. That ended up being a dupe of bug 213912 which is now fixed.
Comment 258•21 years ago
|
||
Just a comment. I've been running with the current implementation of error pages (1.4 Release) for a while. It's considerably better than popups, but the thing of overwriting the location with the error URL is a killer. Often I type an address, get it slightly wrong, press enter, the error URL overwrites it... have to type it again. I don't understand why a URL has to be involved at all. Can't the code rendering the page just realise, OK there is an error, output this instead...?
Comment 259•21 years ago
|
||
Aaron: that's bug 157004, "Use original URL in history and URL bar when an error page is generated".
Comment 260•21 years ago
|
||
Bug 212221 [XUL error pages do not play nicely with IM button in Addressbook] shows another crash from the error pages. It is not fixed by Bug 213912 (crash with js in chrome). It was filed almost 3 weeks ago, but still happens with a 20030728 build.
Comment 261•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 181476 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 262•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 215976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 263•21 years ago
|
||
In Mozilla 1.5, build ID: 2003091604 (Win 98), error pages are broken. I'm getting "XML parsing error" instead of the error pages. Can't find the regression bug yet.
Comment 264•21 years ago
|
||
> Can't find the regression bug yet. It could be bug 219355 - which was fixed yesterday.
Comment 265•21 years ago
|
||
Thanks, Jason. That's right. Moz 1.5 RC1 doesn't have the problem.
Comment 266•21 years ago
|
||
This bug has gotten a bit too long and convoluted. As time permits, I'm going to start working on shutting this bug down, and create new bugs for the current issues. Right now, we have too many people complaining that they want something we have (error pages to replace error dialogs), but not much actual usage or development of the errors pages. Here's the general changes. 1- Review this bug, related bugs, and marked duplicates. (This could take some time) 2- Create new bugs for: open issues (documentation for the pref, obvious problems w/ the error pages, "issue" bugs for each error TYPE (home for the dupes), and changing the default pref value. 3- Close out this bug w/ a EOL-style summary and instructions on where to go for particular issues. I've done this in the past w/ PAC and several other issues that went too long, and overall it worked well in restarting the more useful contributor activity. If you want to discuss this or give me feedback, email me directly.
Comment 267•21 years ago
|
||
The Shuttleworth Foundation are offering a $500 'bounty' to be shared equally between the team of people who fix these bugs, including work already done. See the bottom of http://www.markshuttleworth.com/bounty.html for more info.
Comment 268•21 years ago
|
||
.
Comment 269•21 years ago
|
||
The bounty thing made me realize that Mozilla.org could use a bounty system for more specific donations: see bug 227382 "Bounty system hosted by Mozilla.org" <offtopic>If a 0 were added to the end of that $500, I'd suddenly become very interested (But others would probably fix them before I got a chance) ;-) </offtopic>
Comment 270•21 years ago
|
||
The bounty implies fixing bug 74331 as well (or instead of?).(added to dependancy).
Depends on: 74331
Comment 271•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 229907 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 272•21 years ago
|
||
A nice addition is (what i miss in practicly all browsers) a cross reference with the page not found and the cache. For example: slahsdot.org -> alert("page not found!") - or - slahsdot.org -> Error: page not found (404). (and on the page itself: ) <hr>This page was not found. Do you want to try these links?<br> http://slashdot.org<br> http://bsd.slashdot.org<br> <hr>Or retry this page (press F5 or click below)<br> http://slahsdot.org<br> An additional little nifty algortim wich changes .ne/tnieuws to .net/nieuws and more of those more 'common' typo's would be nice as well, and probably not even that complicated.
Comment 273•21 years ago
|
||
What i still miss (in practicly every browser on the planet) is a cross reference from the broken link with the cache. This is what i now get: slahsdot.org -> alert("not found! argh!"); And what i would like to see is something like this: slahsdot.org -> error page, with in his contents: <hr>Page not found<br> The page was not found, do you want to try on of the following links?<br> http://slashdot.org<br> http://bsd.slashdot.org<br> <hr>Or retry this link (hit F5 or click <a href=http://slahsdot.org>here</a><br> A little nifty algoritm should be great here as well, something that changes things like .ne/tnews to .net/news, etc. It isn't probabley that complicated, but greatly increases the 'fun' of error pages ;)
Comment 274•21 years ago
|
||
Great, do i retype the complete story (browser didn't continue loading), are they BOTH here :/
Comment 275•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 213750 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 276•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 249997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 277•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 263471 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 278•20 years ago
|
||
removing bug 74331 from the list... it seems rather unrelated (except that fixing this bug would make that one less of an issue)
No longer depends on: 74331
Comment 279•19 years ago
|
||
pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", false); isn't this good enough to be set enable by default?
Comment 280•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #279) > pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", false); > isn't this good enough to be set enable by default? > Imho, for trunk builds, the remaining open blocking bugs don't seem important enough to prevent what you're suggesting, except for bug 157004. But the latter seems correctly fixed too on FF 20050221 (the "alternating url" problem described in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157004#c85 is WFM). But this option is still not good enough for final releases.
Comment 281•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 286973 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 282•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #279) > pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", false); > isn't this good enough to be set enable by default? No. I've been using this combined with the show failed url extension and it still leaves much to be desied. 1) You need the show failed url extension to show in the address bar the url of the page you were trying to get to, otherwise it shows the address of the error page in chrome:/// (and even with the extension, showing the url doesn't always work). And that makes it tedious to try to reload the page. 2) Having these error pages enabled breaks the use of the back button, either by "forgetting" the page you were on previously (the back button becomes greyed out and you can't get back to where you were, even with alt-left arrow) or by taking you back *two* pages rather than one.
Comment 283•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #282) > (In reply to comment #279) > > pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", false); > > isn't this good enough to be set enable by default? > > No. I've been using this combined with the show failed url extension and it > still leaves much to be desied. Aren't you referring to some very ancient state of things? None of this is true anymore. I also believe that it's OK to try setting this on by default.
Comment 284•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #283) > (In reply to comment #282) > > (In reply to comment #279) > > > pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", false); > > > isn't this good enough to be set enable by default? > > > > No. I've been using this combined with the show failed url extension and it > > still leaves much to be desied. > > Aren't you referring to some very ancient state of things? > None of this is true anymore. I also believe that it's OK to try setting this on > by default. I am referring to the way FF1.0.2 behaves RIGHT NOW. TODAY. I would not characterize that as an "ancient state of things."
Comment 285•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #284) > I am referring to the way FF1.0.2 behaves RIGHT NOW. TODAY. I would not > characterize that as an "ancient state of things." What about some recent nightly or a build compiled from CVS source?
Comment 286•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #285) > (In reply to comment #284) > > I am referring to the way FF1.0.2 behaves RIGHT NOW. TODAY. I would not > > characterize that as an "ancient state of things." > > What about some recent nightly or a build compiled from CVS source? It does seem the aviary's error pages handling is improved... though it took me forever to find that out since I wanted to use a clean profile and its profile manager was buggy.
Comment 287•19 years ago
|
||
1.0.x is indeed ancient.
Comment 288•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 291486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 289•19 years ago
|
||
I would like to suggest that the pop-up message that appears when a website cannot be found is to be removed, or any other modal dialog. Instead the message should appear in the same way that Firefox lets the user know that a pop-up from a website has been blocked (the yellow bar at the top of a webpage). This way the message does not interfere when the user has continued browsing in another tab while the site is loading. No more annoying pop-ups and no error-page that causes the url in the addressbar to be overwritten.
Comment 290•19 years ago
|
||
> Instead the message should appear in the same way that Firefox lets > the user know What you're asking for would be a different bug, not this one. File another bug and propose it there. > no error-page that causes the url in the addressbar to be overwritten. This no longer happens in recent builds.
Comment 291•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 293170 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 292•19 years ago
|
||
IMHO, the NTNU (Norwegian university of science and technology) error pages (http://www.ntnu.no/blah; source code at http://www.ntnu.no/error.phps) provide some important usability clues: - Display the actual error as H1 on the top of the page, not after a lot of mumbo-jumbo "something went wrong", - Separate the problem description and possible solutions - Provide relevant links / forms - for "not found": a link to the domain with the rest of the URL stripped, link to (Google) cache search, (Google) search form with "site:" as a hidden part of the search string, (Google) search for links to the page - for "unauthorized"/"forbidden": a link to the domain with the rest of the URL stripped - for "gone": link to (Google) cache search, (Google) search for links to the page
Comment 293•19 years ago
|
||
IMHO, the NTNU (Norwegian university of science and technology) error pages (http://www.ntnu.no/blah; source code at http://www.ntnu.no/error.phps) provide some important usability clues: - Display the actual error as H1 on the top of the page, not after a lot of mumbo-jumbo "something went wrong", - Separate the problem description and possible solutions - Provide relevant links / forms - for "not found": a link to the domain with the rest of the URL stripped, link to (Google) cache search, (Google) search form with "site:" as a hidden part of the search string, (Google) search for links to the page - for "unauthorized"/"forbidden": a link to the domain with the rest of the URL stripped - for "gone": link to (Google) cache search, (Google) search for links to the page
Comment 294•19 years ago
|
||
I read through the entire additional comments section and I haven't seen a single person mention the fact that if you were to navigate to a nonexistent page with XUL pages enabled, it nukes the page history! If you press "Go", it will try reloading the page, if you press "Refresh", it will open the previous page. This is applicable for "The address (URL) does not correspond to a known site and could not be loaded," as in typing in http://www.9a8wybrawruadjkds.com/ Why hasn't anyone mentioned this (because when things seem stupid, assume that you're missing something), and is there a corresponding bug for this?
Comment 295•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #294) > I read through the entire additional comments section and I haven't seen a > single person mention the fact that if you were to navigate to a nonexistent > page with XUL pages enabled, it nukes the page history! In my experience, it only loses the history when there is only one page in the history (e.g. you open your browser, the home page loads, and then you go to a non-existant page). If your history consists of more than one page, the history remains, but if you hit the back button it goes back 2 pages instead of one. If you then hit the forward button it goes back to the last page you had up before you went to the non-existent page. This experience sounds, however, consistent with yours. It appears that when FF goes tries to go to a non-existent page and brings up the XUL error page, it actually believes it is still at the previous page it was on. This would explain all of this aberrant behaviour.
Comment 296•19 years ago
|
||
can you people use non-ancient builds before complaining about fixed issues here? (I'm assuming you are using FF 1.0.x or mozilla 1.7.x)
Comment 297•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #296) > can you people use non-ancient builds before complaining about fixed issues > here? (I'm assuming you are using FF 1.0.x or mozilla 1.7.x) I don't understand what you're trying to say. I am using Firefox build 1.0.4 (a quite non-ancient build, unless you count development builds). I still have this problem. I'm trying to find out whether or not there's another bug report for this related behavior for the patch (because this problem is directly created by the patch).
Comment 298•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #296) > can you people use non-ancient builds before complaining about fixed issues > here? (I'm assuming you are using FF 1.0.x or mozilla 1.7.x) Wait... ::rereads comment:: Does that mean it's fixed in FF 1.1? if($fixed == true) { do_happy_dance(); }
Comment 299•19 years ago
|
||
yeah. firefox 1.1 uses a gecko that's more than a year old. that bug is fixed in current builds (in bug 157004, I believe) I very much count development builds.
Comment 300•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #299) > yeah. firefox 1.1 uses a gecko that's more than a year old. that bug is fixed in > current builds (in bug 157004, I believe) > > I very much count development builds. Sorry to spam those who know it already... But I think biesi wanted to say "firefox 1.0.x" instead of "firefox 1.1" above. Please do _not_ add comments about "old" builds (not-trunk, in this case Firefox 1.0.x or Mozilla 1.7.x) on bugs talking about features that aren't even completely finished yet. That only makes the comments list longer and doesn't help fixing the bug. Only report problems on trunk (nightly) builds please.
Comment 301•19 years ago
|
||
Okay, I took a look at the 2005-05-14 official nightly build with a new profile and I tested my problem, and it turned out, lo and behold, same thing! Reproducible: Always Steps: 1. Surf a bit, and get a few pages in your history. 2. Now, type in an obviously bosh URL (like http://www.a892jk3rs9aesae.com ) 3. Take a look at the XUL page 4. Press Back Expected Result: You return to page you were before you typed in the bogus URL Actual Result: You return two pages back Alternately, you can retest number 4 this way: 4. Press Refresh Expected Result: You retry a connection to the bosh Actual Result: You go back to the page you had before you typed in the bosh URL. Does this merit another bug? Can anyone verify?
Comment 302•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #301) You were using an aviary build, this bug is fixed on the trunk build (available here: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/). The trunk versions end with a "+".
Comment 303•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 295598 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 304•19 years ago
|
||
Please implement a feature in Mozilla to turn off the pop-up window "The document contains no data", so that it doesn't disrupt web-surfing. On many sites, I'll get 3 or 4 of these errors in a row, so I have to stop what I'm doing and click OK to each one, which becomes tedious.
Comment 305•19 years ago
|
||
Please implement a feature in Mozilla to turn off the pop-up window "The document contains no data", so that it doesn't disrupt web-surfing. On many sites, I'll get 3 or 4 of these errors in a row, so I have to stop what I'm doing and click OK to each one, which becomes tedious.
Comment 306•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #305) > Please implement a feature in Mozilla to turn off the pop-up window "The > document contains no data", so that it doesn't disrupt web-surfing. On many > sites, I'll get 3 or 4 of these errors in a row, so I have to stop what I'm > doing and click OK to each one, which becomes tedious. Please read the comments and take a look at the blocking bugs before you post additional comments. So you would see that the modal dialog box is covered in bug 216466.
Comment 307•19 years ago
|
||
Removed or corrected dependencies: depends on: 157527->199360 159071 160548->157004 161276 189204 226401 285674 Blocks: 74987 104166 126906->88810 154414 160423 not sure about bug 92997
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1?
Comment 308•19 years ago
|
||
knocking this off the blocker list, we've already turned these on for Deer Park Alpha 2
Flags: blocking-aviary1.1?
Comment 309•19 years ago
|
||
I also use a hosts file to block adware/ads, no real problems except when I click on a link sent to me by eBay from an automated search. All of their links go to doubleclick first. All I get when I click on it is a copy of Firefox with a dialogue telling me it can't be found. Fair enough. But what it doesn't do is to put the URL I originally requested into the address bar so I can remove the doubleclick redirection off it. IE does this, but also displays an error page (which I set to unbeautified - as I want to know what's really going on!), oh, BTW - why can't you turn off case detection for keyboard shortcuts, especially ALT+d works, but ALT+D doesn't. I've also just noticed that ALT+d seems to select the first text box on this page...
Comment 310•19 years ago
|
||
II am using Mozilla Firefox 1.5 beta 1 and confirm that I no longer receive the "this document contains no data" dialog box when I visit error-prone websites.
Comment 311•19 years ago
|
||
I'm assuming that the "Show Failed URL" extension is no longer needed for 1.5b1? Also, what about that "going back 2 pages" bug? What is the status of this now that 1.5b1 is out?
Comment 312•19 years ago
|
||
those bugs are fixed.
Comment 313•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 8345 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
No longer blocks: 8345
Comment 314•19 years ago
|
||
Just to throw in my 2 cents, "413 Request Entity Too Large" also returns "document contains no data"... I had to break out the packet sniffer which gave me more useful messages than firefox did. For people uploading things to our web upload, if they are behind a bad proxy it would be useful if they knew what the problem was, rather than such a generic error.
Comment 315•19 years ago
|
||
To amend my message for Firefox 1.5, it now gives a generic error page "The connection was reset"... For 413 Request Entity Too Large. Still leaves out useful information the server told you! Not much better than the old pop-up IMHO.
Comment 316•19 years ago
|
||
The URL "http://;" gives a "The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded." error dialog box in firefox 1.5. Ideally it would give an error page, not an error dialog box. Not sure if this falls under this bug or not.
Comment 317•18 years ago
|
||
The new "URL Broken" dialog in 1.5.0.5 is not an improvement. It rather defeats the purpose of the error_page machanism.
Comment 318•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #317) This isn't really new, it's since 04/2005. See bug 291876 (and bug 312680 about what you tell).
Comment 319•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #318) > (In reply to comment #317) > This isn't really new, it's since 04/2005. See bug 291876 (and bug 312680 about > what you tell). > Thanks. 312680 describes the problem, though the circumstances under which I see it may be different. 1.5.0.6 is out; if the problem persists, I'll add something over there.
Comment 320•18 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #22) > Another big advantage of error page is that it would always be possible to ask > Mozilla to retry the problematic URL just by pressing "Reload". With dialog, > there does not seem to be a way to retry the communication. I don't see why you couldn't send the error code -and- the URL of the offending page to the dialog box and have the choices: [cancel][try again] The problem with error pages: The page I want is mostly text, but has some advertising around the edges (which I don't care to see) which aren't loading, or are loading slowly. I'm reading the text when all of a sudden I'm looking at a gray error page with a 'try again' button in the middle, and the page I was reading has disappeared. If I hit 'try again' (especially if the text on the page is a long article) I have to wait until the part I was reading gets reloaded, scroll back down to find my place, and still I'll get redirected to this error page because the ads still aren't loading. With a dialog box, I can hit cancel, and continue reading the important parts. > Yet another advatnage is that the error page can be save and/or e-mailed (for > example to report the error to the server admin), while dialog can not. So have a third option on the dialog box to open an error page in a new tab. > I can attest that error pages are > infinetely more convenient and easy to deal with. And I can attest they aren't. Besides, I've always hated IE type error pages. If I liked IE, I'd use it. IE is a Virus.
Comment 321•17 years ago
|
||
Isn't this resolved long ago? The last comment is 5 years old!
Comment 322•17 years ago
|
||
This is a meta bug and not all of the dependencies are resolved. Especially bug 157531 which was reopened.
Updated•17 years ago
|
Updated•16 years ago
|
Updated•15 years ago
|
Assignee: adamlock → nobody
QA Contact: benc → docshell
Comment 323•14 years ago
|
||
This is a mass change. Every comment has "assigned-to-new" in it. I didn't look through the bugs, so I'm sorry if I change a bug which shouldn't be changed. But I guess these bugs are just bugs that were once assigned and people forgot to change the Status back when unassigning.
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Comment 324•14 years ago
|
||
Added depends on bug 569142: show error page instead of reloading when navigating session history to a page that was not stored. The worst case of bug 569142 was mentioned here way back in comment 8 (reload POST results invokes the modal and generally lousy POSTDATA dialog of bug 160144).
Comment 325•13 years ago
|
||
Who is this fubugboys, and why was he able to remove others from the Cc: list of this bug?
Comment 326•13 years ago
|
||
I'm guessing he's exploiting a bug in bugzilla, and having some fun with it...
Comment 327•7 years ago
|
||
Status on this?
Comment 328•3 years ago
|
||
I suspect this can be closed despite open dependencies, but sending over to Networking for confirmation.
Component: DOM: Navigation → Networking
Updated•3 years ago
|
Summary: meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (placeholder page in the content area) (http error pages) → [meta] meta bug - show error pages instead of dialogs for network errors (placeholder page in the content area) (http error pages)
Comment 329•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Henri Sivonen (:hsivonen) (away from Bugzilla until 2021-01-11) from comment #328)
I suspect this can be closed despite open dependencies, but sending over to Networking for confirmation.
I tend to agree. I think bug 157531 may have been fixed too.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•