Last Comment Bug 12274 - (prefetch) RFE: Browser should prefetch LINK tag documents
: RFE: Browser should prefetch LINK tag documents
: embed, topembed
Product: Core
Classification: Components
Component: Networking: Cache (show other bugs)
: Trunk
: All All
P5 enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: mozilla1.2alpha
Assigned To: Darin Fisher
: bsharma
: Patrick McManus [:mcmanus]
: 159044 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 142255 163746
Blocks: grouper
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 1999-08-21 09:17 PDT by Doug Sheppard
Modified: 2003-06-13 15:49 PDT (History)
24 users (show)
See Also:
Crash Signature:
QA Whiteboard:
Iteration: ---
Points: ---
Has Regression Range: ---
Has STR: ---

v0 patch (.tar.gz) (5.43 KB, application/octet-stream)
2002-08-20 18:55 PDT, Darin Fisher
no flags Details
v0.1 patch (34.26 KB, patch)
2002-08-22 15:54 PDT, Darin Fisher
doug.turner: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
v0.2 patch (30.75 KB, patch)
2002-08-27 17:31 PDT, Darin Fisher
darin.moz: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
v1 patch (40.31 KB, patch)
2002-08-29 15:34 PDT, Darin Fisher
doug.turner: review+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
v1.1 patch - revised per comments from dougt over AIM (40.24 KB, patch)
2002-08-29 16:46 PDT, Darin Fisher
darin.moz: review+
rpotts: superreview+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
1.0 branch patch (74.56 KB, patch)
2002-10-09 00:03 PDT, Darin Fisher
no flags Details | Diff | Splinter Review
1.0 branch patch w/ no whitespace changes (70.78 KB, patch)
2002-10-09 00:06 PDT, Darin Fisher
gagan: review+
rpotts: superreview+
rjesup: approval+
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Description User image Doug Sheppard 1999-08-21 09:17:31 PDT
From a discussion in netscape.public.mozilla.wishlist, under the subject "browse
in a non perishable cache and silent browse ahead":

Matt Fletcher wrote:
> > Richard Shaw wrote:
> [snip non-perishable cache idea]
> > Also how about as an alternative to silent download, silent browse
> > ahead. This would when the user is doing nothing would, use up the
> > bandwidth by browsing ahead through the links on a page putting them
> > in a temporary cache only adding them to a normal cache if they are
> > actually visited. This temporary cache should be emptied on exit.
> A lot of ISPs and websites would blacklist Mozilla if it did this.  For
> instance, had a section on how web 'accelerators' really slow
> down the web (i.e. they waste bandwidth on pages at which one never
> looks).
> A cvs-like system that checks frequently viewed pages for changes and
> updates those that did might work well with an expanded cache (whether
> your idea or another form).  I believe this to be a more net friendly
> and practical option.
> Fletch

(The article Matt mentions can be found at

This has actually come up a few times in npm.wishlist and I couldn't find a
Bugzilla entry on it just now, so here it is.  My admittedly imperfect memory
gives this list of the things mentioned for "look ahead" cacheing:

1.  Any look ahead solution should respect the robots.txt exclusion standard, at
a bare minimum.

2.  Ideally any look ahead will be history based, not link based.  Preloading
pages you have already visited and will probably visit again is good; preloading
pages that you may or may not visit because they are linked from whatever's in
the browser window is bad.

3.  An implementation of the LINK tag relationship values "prev" and "next"
might also cache the appropriate resources, regardless of whether they were seen
or not, in the hopes that someone who is going through a series of documents
will probably read them in series.

There are some good reasons to close this bug early, though:

1.  There are already many third-party products that provide these capabilities
by acting as proxy servers, so this may be just another creeping feature for

2.  Implementing this *badly* for Mozilla would be worse than doing nothing at

Somewhat related is bug #11644 asking for more control over what types of
resources get cached.
Comment 1 User image Doug Sheppard 1999-08-31 19:46:59 PDT
Assigned to to flag as unclaimed feature request.
Comment 2 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 1999-12-02 06:17:59 PST
Note: WebTV precaches the document pointed to by <link rel="next"> elements, so
if we do anything it should probably be that.
Comment 3 User image leger 1999-12-13 16:26:59 PST
Bulk move of all Cache (to be deleted component) bugs to new Networking: Cache
Comment 4 User image Michael Lowe 1999-12-20 22:52:59 PST
Comment 5 User image Warren Harris 2000-01-04 11:19:59 PST
We probably won't get to this for this release, but I'm going to leave it in
the list in case someone wants to volunteer.
Comment 6 User image Warren Harris 2000-01-04 17:35:59 PST
Assigning fur's cache bugs to Gordon. He can split them up with davidm.
Comment 7 User image Paul MacQuiddy 2000-04-10 23:30:03 PDT
spam, changing qa contact from paulmac to on networking/RDF 
Comment 8 User image davidm 2000-04-21 16:44:07 PDT
marking rfe.
Comment 9 User image gordon 2000-07-31 14:16:51 PDT
Moving to target milestone FUTURE. We'll take a look at it again after we ship 
Comment 10 User image gordon 2001-09-24 16:32:37 PDT
Changing component and summary according to hixie's suggestion.
Comment 11 User image gordon 2001-09-24 16:36:52 PDT
Reassigning to component & QA owners.
Comment 12 User image Christopher Hoess (gone) 2001-10-02 12:05:19 PDT
This isn't a parser bug.  Giving to nobody.
Comment 13 User image lah 2001-10-09 05:19:32 PDT
Who put in next, index and prev links if they dont want them 
to be used? Don't think this is bad in any way but wery good 
for the user. The browser shuld precash next, index and prev 
in that order. index and prev will be in the cach 90% of the 
time so they are no big deal to the webload. But precashing 
them vill be good 90% of the remaining 10% of the times.

IMHO, this RFE is much more important than the link navigation 
GUI. Any webpage must define navigation in HTML anyway (most 
browsers dont implement link navigation) :-(

Hovewer important, and I would *love* it for 1.0, it *is* a 
RFE and it is *not* critical ;-)
Comment 14 User image Tetsuji Rai 2001-12-07 22:27:59 PST
I also want this feature, although it's a minor problem.  For example,
has this problem.  On other browsers including NS4.78, prefetch works; ie
hovering mouse cursor over the middle menu "Our Aircraft", "Owners.." etc you
will see a different picture on the right.  On mozilla, it's very slow(and
actually it loads the picture each time via Internet), but NS4.78, it's very
quick and it doesn't use the net at all.  Apparently NS4.78 prefetches pictures.
Comment 15 User image Jesse Ruderman 2002-03-27 23:44:47 PST
I don't think it would make sense on Google: most of the time, I just look at
the first page of results.  (Google doesn't use link rel=next now, but they
might add it if browsers get good keyboard shortcuts to access link rel=next.)

On the other hand, this would make sense on most sites that use link rel=next,
and rel=index certainly makes sense.  Overall I think this rfe would be good to
Comment 16 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-03-28 00:31:11 PST
Prefetching is generally considered evil. To take an example close to heart, it
woul approximately double the load on Bugzilla.
Comment 17 User image Jesse Ruderman 2002-03-31 15:08:11 PST
I don't think I've ever used Bugzilla's first/last/prev/next links, and I'm not
sure Bugzilla is even using those links correctly.
Comment 18 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-03-31 18:39:45 PST
I have used them, and they are used correctly.
Comment 19 User image Judson Valeski 2002-07-31 15:12:53 PDT
-> darin
Comment 20 User image Darin Fisher 2002-07-31 17:11:07 PDT
we recently discussed prefetching with the caveat that the additional downloads
would be low-priority, limited possibly to a single network connection, and
preempted by new page loads.  with our existing support for partial cache
entries and byte range requests, we should be able to agressively drop partial
prefetches without sacrificing all of the work done to prefetch.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 159044 ***
Comment 21 User image Darin Fisher 2002-07-31 17:11:46 PDT
oops, i closed the wrong bug :(
Comment 22 User image Darin Fisher 2002-07-31 17:12:31 PDT
*** Bug 159044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 23 User image Darin Fisher 2002-07-31 17:19:32 PDT
I am pretty worried about comment #16... in our recent discussions, we really
haven't addressed server load as a potential concern.  sure, any prefetching
done might improve browser performance, but the overall benefits really depend
on the likelihood that a prefetched document will actually be viewed.  perhaps
this is reason enough to trigger off a different tag?  that way, servers could
opt in.  maybe a HTTP header would even be more appropriate, so as to ensure
that only server admins get to choose the appropriate load level due to
prefetching.  or, maybe that shouldn't be any of mozilla's concern?!  hmm...
Comment 24 User image Jesse Ruderman 2002-07-31 21:37:43 PDT
IMO, Bugzilla should hide the list links unless you click "Go through this list
one bug at a time".  The current list links are wrong more often than they're
right, take up a lot of space (especially if you haven't disabled the site
navigation bar), and break caching.  Bugzilla's strangeness should not stop us
from making Mozilla faster on sites where Next actually means something.
Comment 25 User image Darin Fisher 2002-07-31 22:51:52 PDT
updated status whiteboard and keywords
Comment 26 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-20 18:55:23 PDT
Created attachment 96109 [details]
v0 patch (.tar.gz)

this patch implements a very simple version of prefetching.  during page load
it collects all of the link rel=next hrefs.  when the page finishes loading,
the prefetch code loads the first collected URL in the background.  when that
completes, it loads the next URL.  it does this until all URLs are loaded or
until the user clicks on a link or otherwise starts loading a new page.

i've added some code to kill off prefetched loads of content that either is
already from the cache or could not be taken from the cache without server
revalidation.  this should hopefully avoid taxing servers that misuse link
rel=next (e.g., bugzilla).
Comment 27 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-20 18:57:27 PDT
for those inside the netscape firewall, there's a link rel=next testcase at
Comment 28 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-22 15:54:30 PDT
Created attachment 96364 [details] [diff] [review]
v0.1 patch

this patch just tidies things up a bit.  i've moved the prefetch code into the
uriloader module (i think that makes sense).  this patch works for the 1.0
branch and trunk ( changes only apply to the branch, of course).  i
haven't done the mac project changes yet.
Comment 29 User image Doug Turner (:dougt) 2002-08-27 14:45:06 PDT
Comment on attachment 96364 [details] [diff] [review]
v0.1 patch

I spoke with darin about this patch and it is a great start.  We/I would like
to add a few things like per window precache queues, an attribute on
nsICacheableChannel to determine if a channel can or should be precached, an d
maybe some kind of UI that shows that there is precaching going on.  Worse is
better.  Lets get this in.
Comment 30 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-27 14:48:14 PDT
one change i'd like to make is to not prefetch links containing a query string.
 those most likely correspond to dynamic content that will in most cases come
back without cache headers forcing us to hit the server when loading the content
for real.  so, the value of prefetching such content is minimal.  this nicely
addresses the bugzilla problem BTW :-)
Comment 31 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-27 17:31:08 PDT
Created attachment 96936 [details] [diff] [review]
v0.2 patch

ok, minor change... just blocked URLs w/ query strings, and touched up some
Comment 32 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-27 17:31:52 PDT
Comment on attachment 96936 [details] [diff] [review]
v0.2 patch

carrying forward r=dougt
Comment 33 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-29 15:34:33 PDT
Created attachment 97232 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch

ok, this patch changes things a bit.  instead of modifying the HTML content
sink to invoke nsIPrefetchService::PrefetchURI, the prefetch service now hooks
itself up as a tag observer (implementing nsIElementObserver).	this way it'll
be notified whenever the HTML parser encounters a <link> tag.  i've also added
code to make the prefetch service observe HTTP response headers.  this would
allow, for example, a proxy cache to dynamically introduce prefetch requests
for content that is statistically very popular, for example.
Comment 34 User image Doug Turner (:dougt) 2002-08-29 16:12:44 PDT
Comment on attachment 97232 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch

Comment 35 User image Darin Fisher 2002-08-29 16:46:55 PDT
Created attachment 97242 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.1 patch - revised per comments from dougt over AIM

replaced the switch statement with an if-else to simplify code.  thx dougt!
Comment 36 User image rpotts (gone) 2002-08-30 11:16:06 PDT
hey darin,

this looks really good.  

the ownership model of the nsIURI within the nsPrefetchNode is kinda scary :-) 
You might want to add a comment or two explaining it ;-)

also, could you leverage the loadgroup (associated with each document) to hold
the prefetch requets... that way, you won't need to worry about cancelling them
when a new document load is initiated...

i don't think this is a big deal... just a thought.

-- rick
Comment 37 User image rpotts (gone) 2002-08-30 11:16:48 PDT
Comment on attachment 97242 [details] [diff] [review]
v1.1 patch - revised per comments from dougt over AIM
Comment 38 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-01 12:13:42 PDT
thx for the comments rick...

1- yeah, i'll add some comments on the URI ownership

2- i don't think using the loadgroup of the document would work.  consider the
case of two documents.  one does prefetching, and in the other a user clicks on
a link.  now, loading the new page must contend with the prefetch traffic. 
whereas what i'd really like is to kill off all prefetch traffic when any other
part of mozilla requests a page load.
Comment 39 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-01 17:32:17 PDT
patch landed on trunk... minus mac project changes.  working on that now.
Comment 40 User image Chris Grant 2002-09-01 23:32:29 PDT
For the sake of people that have download limits on there accounts, I hope that
a option has been put into place to turn this on and off as per a users
Comment 41 User image Aaron Lehmann 2002-09-02 00:41:30 PDT
I sure hope so too! I don't like the idea of URL prefetching. I have scarce bandwidth. Let me turn this off and I'll shut up. :-)
Comment 42 User image Christian :Biesinger (don't email me, ping me on IRC) 2002-09-02 03:24:37 PDT
Chris, aaronl: Only links in the form of <link rel="next" href="..."> are
prefetched. not <a href="...">.

and there is a preference, disable this with:
user_pref("network.prefetch-next", false);
Comment 43 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-02 10:58:01 PDT
the preference is only configurable from all.js for now.  i probably should have
made it dynamic (i.e., settable via prefs.js).  the other thing to note is that
prefetching will only occur when the browser has nothing else to do w/ the
network connection, and furthermore any other browser requests to load anything
will kill off any and all prefetch requests.  we are also very selective in what
we'll prefetch.  that is, we only prefetch documents that can be reused.
Comment 44 User image Kai Lahmann (is there, where MNG is) 2002-09-02 11:44:04 PDT
what is now prefetched? Static files linked with <link rel="next"/> only, right?
Comment 45 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-02 11:49:46 PDT
any http:// URL that does not contain a ?query string will be prefetched.  if
the http headers indicate that the document would have to be fetched fresh
each-and-everytime then we'll cancel the prefetch.  in other words, yes, only
static content will be prefetched.
Comment 46 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-09-02 17:05:24 PDT
Assuming it works as described above, I am impressed by the thought that has
gone into this. Let's hope it makes pages appear to render nice and fast!

Do we also support HTTP "Link" headers? They are supported for linking to CSS
style sheets, so presumably it should work for this too, but they are not
supported for site icons, so presumably we still don't have a single Link
service yet, and this means it probably won't work for this either...
Comment 47 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-02 17:13:57 PDT
the prefetch service is a HTTP header observer, which means that it will pick up
HTTP Link headers, but one downside is that HTTP only reports headers that are
new.  IOW, loading a page from the cache will not trigger HTTP header observers.
 that's one way in which Link: header differs from LINK tag.  perhaps a unified
Link service would be the best way to resolve these differences.
Comment 48 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-09-02 18:48:34 PDT
We have several consumers of link elements and headers, each done slightly
differently (e.g. the stylesheet thing probes, rather than listening, and the
site icon code only does <link> elements). One day someone will snap and unify
all this, hopefully. :-)

Great to hear than Link: headers were taken into account though! How about <meta
http-equiv="link"> ?
Comment 49 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-02 19:59:31 PDT
nope... looks like the <meta HTTP-EQUIV="link" ...> would be missed :-(
oh well... will work on a follow up patch!

1) make prefetching a user preference
2) add support for <meta HTTP-EQUIV="link" CONTENT="...">
Comment 50 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-03 19:02:08 PDT
checked in mac project changes.. so this should be in all builds of mozilla 1.2
alpha :-)
Comment 51 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-04 12:26:54 PDT

see these bugs for the remaining issues:
Comment 52 User image Marko Karppinen 2002-09-07 05:35:43 PDT
Would it be worth a special case to not stop the prefetching when the user
clicks on a link to the page that is currently being prefetched? It seems that
the probability of this happening is quite high on the rel=next case.

I understand that the partial cache entries and byte range requests help with
this somewhat, but the worst case is still tearing a tcp connection down,
re-establishing it and sending a new request, right?
Comment 53 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-08 12:53:55 PDT
marko, if the next page references a large document that is being prefetched,
and the user clicks a link to advance to the next page, then if we don't cancel
the prefetched load, loading of the next page will appear to stop on the
prefetched document.  only when the prefetched document is entirely downloaded
will the document appear to snap into place/view.  this happens because the
prefetch load and the new load are not at all tied together.  instead, the
second one gets blocked waiting for access to the cache.  so, while it might be
true that not canceling would give better page load times, the result is
something that most likely won't appeal to many users.  i think it's better to
cancel the prefetch partway thru, so we can go ahead and display what we've
already got ASAP.
Comment 54 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-09-08 13:45:00 PDT
Wouldn't it be cool if instead of blocking, it noticed that a fetch was already
in progress for that resource, and simply hooked into it?
Comment 55 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-08 14:03:46 PDT
it would certainly be cool, but not at all easy to implement.
Comment 56 User image Bartosz Wucke 2002-09-10 19:21:14 PDT
Concerning comment #38 (2):
Why killing this, and not just suspending until any other activity ends?
(example situation: webpage with search results. I open some of them in new
windows/tabs to see if they contain what I want, but if not - I want to check
the next page of results. Would be nice if it was there already.)

Concerning comment #47:
I wouldn't worry. If the document is already in cache, then there's a good
chance that either the "next" document will be there as well, or it will not be
needed, since if the user didn't follow it first time, they won't follow it now too.

Worth consideration: Mozilla vs Law. "By clicking on this link you agree to
terms of conidtions...". The server logs will say you followed this link even
though you didn't. Luckily webmasters rather don't implement such points as <link...

Also consider possiblity of maliciously formed pages to use this feature to
exploit remote server vulnerablities. More on topic:
Limiting number of links to follow to a fairly low number (8?) would prevent
abusing this.
Comment 57 User image Neil Pilgrim 2002-09-14 14:40:01 PDT
Bartosz wrote:
>Worth consideration: Mozilla vs Law. "By clicking on this link you agree to
>terms of conidtions...". The server logs will say you followed this link even
>though you didn't. Luckily webmasters rather don't implement such points as

As I was reading through this bug I was thinking exactly the same thing. TBH I
was considering whether 'next' might be considered a 'submit' link (eg. in a
wizard/druid of some kind), in which case preloading it would submit without the
user's express permission - as Bartosz said. But I'm sure there are worse ways
this could be exploited, much as I think its a good idea ;|

At some level this might be considered a bug in the web-app, but if a user
switches to a gecko browser and suddenly finds that their web-email inbox is
empty due to mozilla precaching the 'remove this email' link, there could be
Comment 58 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-09-14 18:56:06 PDT
Why would anyone ever say

   <link rel="next" href="./delete-mail">

...and would they ever do it without a query string? I doubt it.
Comment 59 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-15 22:01:06 PDT
here's a site that uses <link rel=next> without any cache control headers.  the
pages appear to be served up using PHP without the use of query strings.  as a
result we prefetch each next page, but then kill off the load once we see that
it doesn't have any cache headers.  needless to say this is bad for a number of
reasons.  perhaps the best recourse is to evangelize such sites.  hmm...
Comment 60 User image Hixie (not reading bugmail) 2002-09-16 00:46:45 PDT
I take it "Last-Modified" is one of those cache headers?

VERIFIED FIXED. This bug makes reading the HTML4 spec so much nicer. Thanks
Darin. You kick ass.
Comment 61 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-16 11:15:05 PDT
yes, Last-Modified is good enough, because it let's us take a guess at how long
the document can remain stale ((date - lastmodified)/10), and when the document
does expire, all we have to do is send a conditional If-Modified-Since request
to the server (allowing the server to say 304 not modified).
Comment 62 User image Nicolás Lichtmaier 2002-09-21 19:12:10 PDT
Uhm... why do I see two downloads of the same document with ethereal? I'm
browsing the HTML specs and I see two full GET's for each page...! I'm using
build 2002091505 .
Comment 63 User image John Morrison 2002-09-21 20:15:54 PDT
With a current trunk build on win2k, I can't reproduce this (although instead of
using ethereal I was just checking breakpoints in the code and also checking the 
server logs for a prefetch testcase modelled on the w3 TR documents). I see a GET
for the first document, then a prefetch of the second. On moving to the second 
document, I see a prefetch of the third document, etc.

Note: if you click on the 'Next' link in those pages before the prefetch of that
next document was complete then this would cancel that pending prefetch and a
new (partial) GET request would be issued for the next document. But this is by
Comment 64 User image Darin Fisher 2002-09-22 21:09:29 PDT
nick: you should also verify that ethereal isn't "lying to you" ... sometimes
(especially under windows) it'll report a packet twice.  check the sequence
numbers to be certain you aren't seeing an ethereal bug.  barring that there is
always the possibility that you are loading pages that do not allow caching. 
after loading one of the pages, you could look at the page info for the page to
see if the server specified an expiration time.  once that expiration time is
past, the prefetched document will have to be validated the next time it is loaded.
Comment 65 User image Darin Fisher 2002-10-09 00:03:17 PDT
Created attachment 102308 [details] [diff] [review]
1.0 branch patch

combines original patch + all subsequent fixes (bug 166647, bug 171102, and bug
Comment 66 User image Darin Fisher 2002-10-09 00:06:01 PDT
Created attachment 102309 [details] [diff] [review]
1.0 branch patch w/ no whitespace changes

there's quite a bit of whitespace-noise in the real branch patch.  review this
one instead.
Comment 67 User image Gagan 2002-10-10 07:10:44 PDT
While I agree that PRTimeToSeconds should really live in NSPR, we should
minimize having multiple definitions of the same function (I count 3 more within
Necko alone-- FTP has 2 and HTTP has another one) Can we at least consolidate
that into Necko's common util.h file (I forget the exact name-- it's been that

Other than this nitpick it looks great! r=gagan
Comment 68 User image Gagan 2002-10-10 07:18:40 PDT
Comment on attachment 102309 [details] [diff] [review]
1.0 branch patch w/ no whitespace changes

Comment 69 User image Darin Fisher 2002-10-11 11:11:29 PDT
gagan: thanks for the review.  i talked to wtc about PRTimeToSeconds (can't
remember the bug no), and he decided that he didn't want to put that function in
NSPR because (1) no way to represent dates before 1970 and (2) no way to
represent dates after ~2130.  i see his point, and i'm hoping to eventually
clean things up so that we can have one instance of this function. 
Comment 70 User image rpotts (gone) 2002-10-11 13:07:17 PDT
Comment on attachment 102309 [details] [diff] [review]
1.0 branch patch w/ no whitespace changes
Comment 71 User image Randell Jesup [:jesup] 2002-10-14 16:38:41 PDT
Comment on attachment 102309 [details] [diff] [review]
1.0 branch patch w/ no whitespace changes for 1.0 branch with the proviso that the default be that the
feature is disabled unless the pref is used to enable it, as per driver
discussions and Darin's agreement.
Comment 72 User image Darin Fisher 2002-10-14 17:01:19 PDT
default disabled sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Comment 73 User image Michael Buckland 2002-10-15 12:40:10 PDT
Discussed in bBird team meeting.  We will give adt approval for this as soon as
test cases are attached to this bug.  Please make sure Bindu is cc'ed on bug. 
We need the checkin to happen by 10/16 COB.  I will watch this bug and
immediately plus it when the test cases are attached.

We are going to reserve the right to ship with this turned off if problems are
Comment 74 User image Darin Fisher 2002-10-15 14:35:05 PDT
this URL contains links to some examples (sorry for the internal site):

Comment 75 User image Michael Buckland 2002-10-17 10:54:52 PDT
Plussing per email from darin indicated lyecies approval to ship pref'ed on, and
attached test cases.
Comment 76 User image Michael Buckland 2002-10-17 10:55:35 PDT
Plussing per email from darin indicated lyecies approval to ship pref'ed on, and
attached test cases.
Comment 77 User image Darin Fisher 2002-10-24 21:47:23 PDT
marking fixed1.0.2 belatedly.  patch landed 10/16.
Comment 78 User image Michael Buckland 2002-10-25 14:41:18 PDT
Bulk adding topembed keyword.  Gecko/embedding needed.
Comment 79 User image bsharma 2002-10-25 14:48:18 PDT
Verified on 2002-10-25-branch build on Win 2K.

The test case works as expected.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.