144541 - 'Save Page As' does not save cached pages

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 115174

(SeaMonkey :: UI Design, defect)

Description

[lynx]

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513
Debian/1.0rc2-1
BuildID:    1.0RC2

When I do telebanking like a payment, I'd like to save the page with the payment
infos, but this fails, saying sometine like 'page was removed'.. 'page does no
longer exist'
It would be nice to save the page from cache in this case...




Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. go to my bank
2. open my account
3. transfer some money :-)

Comment 1

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

This is a consequence of us using HEAD here, I suspect.

Banks always mark their pages no-cache, so it is in fact not in cache.

Comment 2

[Kenneth Herron]

Lynx, are you still experiencing this problem? Can you provide a sample URL
(which could be accessed by someone else for testing purposes) that demonstrates
the problem?

Comment 3

[Alexander Opitz]

reporter:
Does this problem happens in more recent builds? Can you provide an example URL?

Comment 4

[Alexander Opitz]

@reporter:
Please answer to your bug in bugzilla and not via an email to one person.


The reporter answered via mail:

Hello !

> Does this problem happens in more recent builds? Can you provide an example URL?

Yes, I still can't save some pages. I have to 'View Page Source' and copy the
html to an editor, which is very annoying :-/

Unfortunately I can't provide an URL, because I would have to provide the
telebanking account.
But I think their system generates pages which can only be viewed once, so when
saving a viewed page, it is no more available.

The message I get:
"The link could not be saved. The web page might have been removed or had it's
name changed."

When reloading the page, I get a message that the page contains POST data, but
by clicking OK the page in question is reloaded. Other pages containing POST
data can be saved.

Would it be possible to save the page source (which is available somewhere since
I can view it) to a file in case "The link could not be saved..." ?


I'm using:
Mozilla 1.3.1    
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030527
Debian/1.3.1-2

Regards
 André

Comment 5

[[e-mail]]

I'm troubled  by this bug too.

The basic idea for me is this:  If, as a user, I save a page, I want to be sure
that I can pretty much read the page when I'm not connected to the internet from
my saved copy.  Sure maybe the images will be broken, etc.  But there should be
a local copy of the text and hopefully formatting that I can bring up again. 
Too often I try to save a page (like a bank statement) and all I get is an empty
frame or some text saying that the transaction is too old (as though the saved
page is trying to contact the server again.)  It seems like there should be some
way to just capture what the page looks like in html, and not have to wonder if
it actually worked or not.

Comment 6

[Dan Howell]

I've seen this behavior when making payments to Discover Card
(http://www.discovercard.com) and Citicards (http://www.citicards.com).  Of
course I can't give complete URLs without revealing personal banking
information.  The Citicards web server gives me an error message saying
essentially that my payment has already been submitted.  This indicates to me
that the form may be being sumbitted again when "Save Page As, HTML Only" is
selected.  What really concerns me about this is that, on a less smart web page,
a user's payment may be submitted twice, when all the user wanted to do was save
a copy of the payment receipt.  This is more than just annoyance, it could cause
people's checks to bounce unexpectedly.  I've seen web pages (can't remember
URL's off the top of my head, though) which say  something to the effect of
"Press the Submit button ONLY ONCE, or your account may be debited or charged
twice."  Selecting "Save As" should NEVER cause a form to be re-submitted, at
least not without a warning to the user.

Comment 7

[Dan Howell]

Is this a duplicate of bug 115174?  The summary on that bug is horribly worded
for queries, but it seems to be the same thing, or at least what I was
describing in my previous comment.

Comment 8

[Matthew Elvey]

Yes.  I improved its wording. Marking duplicate of bug 115174.  (Don't get why
this is dependent on bug 137696.)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 115174 ***