224153 - Automatically enable 'search for' when URL includes a space

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 58867

(SeaMonkey :: Search, enhancement)

Description

[Marc Doughty]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031027
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031027

I figure that Mozilla should automatically assume that you're searching for
something when you insert a 'space' caharacter into the URL bar. For instance,
when I type 'foo' into the URL field it will check for domains first (foo.com),
but if I type 'foo bar' it should assume that I intend to search, and save me a
down-arrow keystroke. There's no valid use of a space in any valid URL that I
know of.

For usability/sanity purposes it might make sense to have the 'search for'
option hilite automatically AND prevent invalid URLs from getting passed to the
deeper bowels of the app anyway.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. enter 'foo bar' into URL field.
2. hit enter/return.

Actual Results:  
'the URL is not valid...'

Expected Results:  
search google for 'foo bar', as per my preferences.

Comment 1

[Marc Doughty]

I just thought of this too...

If Firebird had some implementation of this 'smarter preemptive search' instead
of the two-field system currentlyused it could help put an end to some bad
feelings. If a URL is invalid in firebird's URL field it could automatically
change the field to 'search'.

Comment 2

[DunxD]

I agree with this suggestion.  It just seems the intuitive thing to do.  Mozilla can recognise when an invalid URL is put in, but currently does nothing with that.  Why not try to do a search on this.

Mind you, it is nice to have invalid URL's pointed out, such as accidentally hitting , instead of . (eg. www.google,com).  But a space in the URL bar almost certainly indicates a search is desired.

Usability wise this would be a useful enhancement.

Comment 3

[R.K.Aa.]

WFM. Make sure "Preferences->Navigator->Internet Keywords" is checked.
See bug 58867 comment 32.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 58867 ***