User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 With PDF warning I mean that, if a link points to a PDF file the mousecursour changes to e.g. an arrow with a small "PDF" tag. Thsi would inform the user if he's clicking onto a link wich leads to a PDF file. The main advantage is that the user knows when Mozilla opens a PDF file (prevents the user of waiting till the PDF plug-in has started up). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
INVALID. We can't know that a link will return a PDF file until we attempt to retrieve the resource.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
I meant if the link points to a file wich ends with *.pdf.
That doesn't mean it's a PDF. We need to know the MIME type of the representation, and we only get that when we retrieve it. Examples: Is this a PDF? http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/of0612.pdf No, it's HTML. (and although it says '404 not found', that's a lie - it's returning a valid HTML document and a '200 OK' status). What about this? http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_cv.php?prof_id=acemoglu Not PDF? Nope, it is.
Another (better) example: http://www.westernorthodox.com/Lux-Occidentalis Which isn't even a dynamic page. On the web, the names of URL's do not necessarily bear any relation to the content.
verified invalid Mozilla must get the header for the file.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
So it's not possible?
No, because the type is determined by the content-type (inside the file), not by the file-extension (in the link). It might be possible with the type attribute of the A-tag (like <a href="http://www.westernorthodox.com/Lux-Occidentalis" type="application/pdf">), see <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.2>. But even in this case you have to accept that the actual content might be different than the type-hint. And what if your cursor indicates that it's a PDF file, but it's really a Word-document ? With possibly a macro-virus inside ? I can already imagine the bug-report. Note: it's still a good idea for an extension, though ...
Ok. I just found a thing like this very useable.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.