Closed Bug 213699 Opened 22 years ago Closed 8 years ago

Write PAC docs

Categories

(Developer Documentation Graveyard :: General, defect)

Product:
Developer Documentation Graveyard
Component:
General
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: maxnitribitt, Assigned: dmcdonald999, Mentored)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: [DocArea=Networking])

User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0) Build Identifier: auto-proxy file format specification : ( http://wp.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/2.0/relnotes/demo/proxy-live.html ) states, that daterange() can handle those combinations of arguments: 8<------------------>8 dateRange(day) dateRange(day1, day2) dateRange(mon) dateRange(month1, month2) dateRange(year) dateRange(year1, year2) dateRange(day1, month1, day2, month2) dateRange(month1, year1, month2, year2) dateRange(day1, month1, year1, day2, month2, year2) dateRange(day1, month1, year1, day2, month2, year2, gmt) [...] Even though the above examples don't show, the "GMT" parameter can be specified in any of the 9 (sic!) different call profiles, always as the last parameter. 8<------------------>8 In the examples section there is one call that doesn't match these call profiles: 8<------------------>8 This statement is true on the 24th of December, 1995. dateRange(24, "DEC", 1995) 8<------------------>8 Is the call profile collection incomplete, or is this a fake example? Could anyone please shed some light into this matter? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
*** Bug 213700 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Moving all of rudman's bugs to me, the new owner of Doc: User.
Assignee: rudman → rlk
QA Contact: rudman → stolenclover
Assignee: rlk → nobody
I've been going function-by-function through PAC, and I had not gotten that far down. I don't think anynoe has ever noticed that! You probably need to look at the JS function to see what is going on.
Summary: .pac file format specification for daterange() is inconsistent! → PAC: specification for daterange() is inconsistent!
GMT is always parsed off the end, so this is probably a documentation error. The problem is that this file is a de-facto internet specification, that lives on a site we don't control. I've pondered posting an annotated version of the spec. I've been working on a technical document on PAC as well.
Not really sure where this should live... neither if this is still valid.
Component: Help Viewer → Documentation Requests
Product: Documentation → Mozilla Developer Center
QA Contact: danielwang → doc-request
it's valid...
(In reply to comment #6) > it's valid... > Ah, ok. Correct me if I'm wrong when assuming devmo is the right place for this.
Component: Documentation Requests → Documentation
Automatically closing all bugs that have not been updated in a while. Please reopen if this is still important to you and has not yet been corrected.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Reopening for review by Sheppy.
Assignee: nobody → eshepherd
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
Yeah, this belongs on devmo.
Component: Documentation → General
Product: Mozilla Developer Network → Developer Documentation
Whiteboard: u=mozdev p=0
Component: General → Mozilla Platform
Whiteboard: u=mozdev p=0 → u=mozdev p=0 c=Platform
I can't find PAC docs on MDN. The Netscape docs discussed here are now in the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20070602031929/http://wp.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/2.0/relnotes/demo/proxy-live.html#dateRange Need to be synced with the source: http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/base/src/ProxyAutoConfig.cpp Could also need a glossary entry for "PAC". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config
Assignee: eshepherd → nobody
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Component: Mozilla Platform → General
Summary: PAC: specification for daterange() is inconsistent! → Write PAC docs
Whiteboard: u=mozdev p=0 c=Platform → [DocArea=Networking]
For more info, see also the DUPES.
it seems more logical to me to dupe all of these on bug 142498 and re-open it, no?
(In reply to Marc Bejarano from comment #15) > it seems more logical to me to dupe all of these on bug 142498 and re-open > it, no? That bug is in the "Documentation" product and "Web developer" component which has been a graveyard in the last few years. I propose to use this one, if we want to do write this on MDN one day. I don't think it matters much which of the DUPES to use in the end, though. Feel free to re-triage if you feel strong about it.
Mentor: jypenator
I'm interested in taking a look at this, but http://wp.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/2.0/relnotes/demo/proxy-live.html resolves to the generic AOL home page. I guess 2003 was a long time ago :)
Flags: needinfo?(jypenator)
Thanks. Lots of info so I'll take this bug. Please assign to me.
do you not see a "take" link next to the "Assigned To:" field in the bug summary?
No I don't. There is a pull-down on "Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it" that lists Profile, Activity, Mail. Where should I be looking?
No I don't. There is a pull-down on "Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it" that lists Profile, Activity, Mail. Where should I be looking?
i guess your current bugzilla permissions don't allow you to take bugs yet. if they did, you would see the "take" link right next to that pull-down. i just assigned it for you.
Assignee: nobody → dmcdonald999
and thanks for volunteering to work on this! :)
Yeah, I'm pretty new. Thanks
Question: there are a number of functions documented as part of PAC: isPlainHostName(, dnsDomainIs(), localHostOrDomainIs(), isResolvable(), etc. I assume these are global functions? Should they each be documented on their own pages and then referred to be the PAC page? Should they be listed on the JavaScript Global Functions page?
They are part of the PAC API not of the Web API or even the JS API. These are different beast. E.g. They will not be available from a Web pages, or from node.js. That means they should not be listed under Web/API or as JS global functions. I think it is not worth to have a multipage PAC docs, so I would say, document them in the page itself only.
Got it. Thanks.
(In reply to Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli] from comment #27) > They are part of the PAC API not of the Web API or even the JS API. These > are different beast. Moved to Networking/Necko: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/Necko/Proxy_Auto-Configuration_%28PAC%29_file See also: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/Necko/Proxies_in_Necko
PAC doc is ready for review. I tested all of the syntax examples and found some previously undocumented or partially documented behavior having to do with parameter ordering. I added notes and warnings about this behavior. PAC doc: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/Necko/Proxy_Auto-Configuration_%28PAC%29_file Glossary addition: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/PAC
See Also: → 1267071
From a content perspective it looks okay; can you find someone to do a technical review?
I will try and recruit someone.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Hi Marc, I've been away for a while and see this bug still needs review. Would you be willing to give it a technical review? Duncan
Flags: needinfo?(bmo)
hi duncan, i don't feel particularly qualified. i was a light user of PAC many moons ago when i cc'd myself to this bug. haven't touched it in years.
Flags: needinfo?(bmo)
This has been polished and moved here https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Proxy_servers_and_tunneling/Proxy_Auto-Configuration_(PAC)_file I think it's OK to call this done. We can open specific new bugs if necessary. Thanks again, Duncan!
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago → 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.