207372 - Element Properties -> Image Properties should include file type

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: General, enhancement)

Description

[Kevin Ar18]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6

The Image Properties Window does not tell what type of image it is.  This can be
a problem when checking the images on bugzilla.

For example:
Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=124232&action=view
Right click on the image and select properties.
Using the properties window, there is no valid way to determine what type of
image it is (aka gif, png, bmp, etc...)  You will notice the location field has
the value "http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=124232&action=view" 
Because of this, you cannot determine the type from the URL of the image.

Thus, for cases like this, either an "Image Type:" or a "Type:" or a "File Type"
field would be useful to indicate what type of image it is.

----------------------
Here's one suggested layout of where to place the new field:

Location:
Width:
Height:
Size of File:
File Type:
Alternatate text:

---------------------
A suggested formatting of the "File Type" value could be as follows (note it is
similar to the Size of File field).

EXTENSION (Description)
GIF (Graphics Interlaced Format)
PNG (Portable Network Graphics)
BMP (Bitmap)
JPG,JPEG (Joint Photographic ? Group?)

Hope I got them right :)

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[Kevin Ar18]

I also wanted to ask a question while I'm at it.
I wanted to file this bug so it get's integrated into Mozilla Firebird. 
Question is, do I need to also file this suggestion under the Phoenix component?
<OFFTOPIC>
I'm a little confused as to what from Mozilla will be integrated into Phoenix. 
From what I thought Phoenix (now Firebird) was gonna become the main product,
but so far that's not happened.  I'm not sure if Mozilla and Firebird have
completely separated or if there is still some integration.  This are has caused
considerable confusion about which of the two to file suggestions and bug
reports under.
Can someone clarify this issue?  Perhaps in private?
</OFFTOPIC>

Comment 2

[Jo Hermans]

Interesting idea, but should it be better to use the MIME-type instead ?
(image/png, image/gif, image/jpeg, etc ..)

Comment 3

[Bill Mason]

I think mime type would be better.  Note that this info is already available in
the Page Info window, Media tab.

Note also that in the example given, Mozilla and Firebird already tell you "PNG
image" in the titlebar.

Comment 4

[Kevin Ar18]

Quote from Bill Mason:
Note also that in the example given, Mozilla and Firebird already tell you "PNG
image" in the titlebar.
----------
:) your right, didn't notice :)

Quote from Jo Hermans:
Interesting idea, but should it be better to use the MIME-type instead ?
(image/png, image/gif, image/jpeg, etc ..)
----------
That's a good idea as well.  I think I am beginning to agree that this is a more
technically correct method to use.  I also noticed that the MIME-type actually
provides a more detailed description.  It's not as much info as what I
suggested, but perhaps it could be used.
For example:
image/jpeg (JPEG Image)
image/gif (GIF Image)

thus, you could use a field like so
MIME-type: image/jpeg (JPEG Image)
MIME-type: image/gif (GIF Image)

The primary consideration will always what will be best for the end user and
overal program usage and not what is easiest to program.  So is MIME-type the
best choice tecnically and in terms of readability, or would a more friendly
description be better (as originally suggested)?

Comment 5

[Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]

I was going to file this bug.  As a user, I find this information (the MIME
content-type of an image) useful and it should be easily available (from
secondary click: Properties).

As to whether the MIME content type should be used, what else would one use? 
Possibly one could use the file signature (where one is available) - maybe if
there was a discrepancy between the file signature and the MIME type, the
file-signature should also be given. (I assume Mozilla uses the MIME type
followed by the file signature for verification of image type.)

I would agree that displaying, say, "Content type: img/png (PNG image)" is
redundant - "Content type:img/png" should do. Possibly a link to or the URI of
the PNG, GIF and JFIF specifications might be useful for some people.

Comment 6

[Kevin Ar18]

From a programming standpoint, this would be a very simply feature to add in. 
The only question now, is exactly how should it should be labeled, and where to
place it within the various image properties.

Some of the possible ways include:

File Type:
Image Type:
Content Type:
MIME-type:

As for the actual information, some of the formatting methods include:
JPEG
JPEG Image
JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
image/jpeg (JPEG Image)
image/jpeg


Just some thoughts:  Although Joe did suggest that image/jpeg (JPEG Image) was
redundent, one of the reasons I suggested it was because it includes the more
tehnical description as well as a more readable description to catch the user's
eye.  "image/jpeg" is more technically accurate in terms of MIME-type.  "(JPEG
Image)" is more naturally readable.  ...., but perhaps it just is too much to
have both.

Comment 7

[Kevin Ar18]

I'm not sure if this would quality for a top100 keyword, but this feature would
be of use to a top100 site: tomshardware.com, the main logo at the top.

Comment 8

[Kevin Ar18]

I am proposing we use:
Type:      [ MIME-type   ]
and that we position this field between "Location:" and "Width:" (or at the very
least after the "Location:" field)

Type: would be the field name
MIME-Type would the the MIME-type in the formats like the following: image/jpg,
image/gif, text/html
This is the exact same format as in the "Page Info" dialog, so see that dialog
for reference.  Example will follow.

As for positioning this field, between the "Location:" field and the "Width:"
field, this is based on the "Page Info" dialog.  In the "Page Info" dialog it's
positioned right below the URL field.  However, anywhere after "Location:" would
probably be acceptable.

Comment 9

[Kevin Ar18]

Attachment: Comparision between Page Info and possible locations on Image Properties

This is a simple comparision showing the location of the Type: MIME-type field
in the Page Info dialog and 2 possible locations in the Element/Image
Properties dialog.

Comment 10

[dolphinling]

Confirming based on http://www.mozilla.org/quality/help/unconfirmed.html

Changing the summary to something more technically accurate since Image
Properties isn't its own window.
Was: Image Properties Window Could use an "FileType:" field
Now: Element Properties -> Image Properties should include file type

Moving to XP Apps: GUI Features. This is correct, isn't it?

Finally, seconding that it should come first after Location and should be
MIME-type, then easy-to-read

Comment 11

[Jo Hermans]

*** Bug 225135 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 12

[Olivier Cahagne]

*** Bug 234360 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 13

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

One you guys sort out the UI you want, see
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/xpfe/browser/resources/content/pageInfo.js#934
for how to do it.

Comment 14

[Kevin Ar18]

I think that the UI design in Attachment 130244 [details] is what we are going for.

Details:
1) It would follow the design of the top, right image in Attachment 130244 [details].
2) It would be located directly below the "Location" field.
3) The label would be simply "Type:" or "MIME-type:"
4) The actual data in the labal would be the mime-type data of the image such as
image/gif, image/jpg, etc...

So, I think that the only point that has not been agreed on is point #3. 
Comments on it?  Reasons why one should be used instead of the other?

I guess as Boris mentioned, it would be good to go ahead and settle on the UI so
 that this can be added.

Comment 15

[Jeremy M. Dolan]

Attachment: preliminary patch attempt, based on bz's pointing

I tried to write a patch for this and am pretty sure I failed. I'm not very
familiar with JS intricacies, especially when XUL is involved.

I think this is pretty close to the right idea though, so if there's someone
around who actually knows what they're doing, my work may be salvageable.

(This patch is untested. I would be very impressed if it didn't break
something.)

Comment 16

[Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]

I agree with comment #14.  In response to its question about point #3, I suggest
the form be "Content type: foo/bar" as I said in comment #5, because "MIME type"
is innacurate (as its not just for MIME), is deprecated by W3C (who prefer
"content type") and will not make much sense to Joe Random.

Although it is probably not necessary, for those who want more info than just
the content type, we could make references to a given content type, foo/bar, in
the UI link to http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/foo/bar or the spec
for the format for people who want more info.  That is probably a bit silly.

Comment 17

[Kevin Ar18]

Thanks for the feeback Joe.
If I may make a suggestion, how about we just use "Type:" instead of "Content Type:"
1. This would be shorter (and easier to understand).
2. This is how the Page Info dialog does it (as shown in attachment 130244 [details]),
thus we would be maintaining consistency.
3. A shorter name is easier for the eyes/brain to find in a long list of items.

The only down side is that it is slightly less accurate than "Content Type:"
(and people might not learn anything from it).

Comment 18

[dolphinling]

Moving this to Firefox

Comment 19

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

*** Bug 352231 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 20

[Florian Quèze [:florian]]

I fixed this in bug 241274.