User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-DE; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-DE; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4 See error message #288165 .. [Bug 288165] SVG path: marker-start/-end (auto orient): wrong direction see e.g. attachment #1183021 The complete XML file is to be seen only with "Edit" Attachment, "Edit As Comment" Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.call Bug 288165 2.edit Attachment #1183021 (showing only the css part!!) 3."Edit As Comment" will show up the complete XML file Actual Results: No working on this error message, because the maintainer was seeing only a strange detail of the error message Expected Results: Correct text, following by the usual error correction process For a progress with error message 288165, please inform the maintainer about this situation
I can see the effect (CSS being displayed only) using Firefox. IE shows an error message: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The XML page cannot be displayed Cannot view XML input using style sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try again later. Switch from current encoding to specified encoding not supported. Error processing resource 'https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/a... <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" standalone="no"?> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachments are displayed as IFRAMEs, and the content that is sent to the browser is announced with the MIME type of the attachment. The browser is then responsible for displaying the attachment. It seems what we're seeing is the way Firefox displays text/xml (the current MIME type of the attachment in question) -- tags are omitted so that only the CSS part is left over. I think you might get better results if you specified text/plain as the MIME type for these particular files.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Component: Bug Import/Export & Moving → Attachments & Requests
Resolution: --- → INVALID
(In reply to comment #1) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Attachments are displayed as IFRAMEs, and the content that is sent to the > browser is announced with the MIME type of the attachment. The browser is then > responsible for displaying the attachment. > > It seems what we're seeing is the way Firefox displays text/xml (the current > MIME type of the attachment in question) -- tags are omitted so that only the > CSS part is left over. > > I think you might get better results if you specified text/plain as the MIME > type for these particular files. Nice, and I think, correct - the source sent may be very "correct" but the view of the user (and/or the maintainer!!!) is through the spectacles of a browser - in our case mainly of mozilla type. And what the maintainer is seeing, is indeed TOTALLY WRONG!!! Look at the results - there is no work on the original error message I sent since March! It would even be AS STRANGE AS IMPOSSIBLE to feed the thousends and thousends senders of error messages with the information: "if the source is of some types, it isn't displayed by browsers in the expected manner. There may be another way to send the data" The cause of the unexpected behavior is of NO INTEREST AT ALL, it is the PLIGHT OF THE PROGRAM, here Bugzilla, to send the data in manner which will lead to a sufficient view for the maintainer, i.e. a correct output on the maintainers screen, at least, to SEND INFORMATION, THAT HE's NOT GETTING A CORRECT VIEW; AND WHAT HE HAS TO DO TO GET A CORRECT ONE. Sorry, but a developer in commercial work seeing this in another way would be without job instantly. This is even true, when the error is only set up by a typical unsufficient user program reaction. It's an easy job for bugzilla, it has to work only on some actual browsers. A son of mine had to take back 30000 correct CDs, tested on some dozen of browsers and browser versions, W3C checked - they were crashing the system on the ancient browser of the client.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
Simply put, it is impossible for Bugzilla to know how to preprocess a bunch of bytes (that's what an attachment is; it can be anything at all) so that it's displayed the way the submitter intended the bunch of bytes to be displayed. Take HTML code for instance -- some (I'd say most) may want it to be displayed in layouted view, others may want the code to display. Submitters may influence the way Bugzilla asks the browser to display the bunch of bytes by specifying the MIME type. What we're seeing is correct -- the MIME type is text/xml, so the browser that's being asked to display it that way tries its best to do it. In your particular case, you want the code not to be interpreted, but to be displayed as plain text -- ok, help Bugzilla to help the Browser, and set the MIME type to text/plain. Sorry; marking INVALID again.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago → 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
(In reply to comment #4) > 2: Given the actual user information, the real purpose of MIME types isn't > visible for bug submitters. [...] > 4: If the attachment is containing text, every developer would like to look > at the text before loading it. What comes to my mind for this is a checkbox on the attachment upload page along the lines of "[ ] When displaying this attachment, display its source code". With this checked, Bugzilla would send the attachment contents as text/plain regardless of the real MIME type. The real MIME type would then be purely informational, or maybe additionally useful for a "Display this attachment" link on the page showing the source code.
(In reply to comment #5) > What comes to my mind for this is a checkbox on the attachment upload page along > the lines of "[ ] When displaying this attachment, display its source code". > With this checked, Bugzilla would send the attachment contents as text/plain > regardless of the real MIME type. The real MIME type would then be purely > informational, or maybe additionally useful for a "Display this attachment" link > on the page showing the source code. (.. just making an entry I promised not to do ..) Good idea. With such a comment I hadn't had some days of work, and perhaps my original error message from march would have been processed successfully a month ago. It might be remarkable, that no one - not I, but also not the maintainer, was thinking about using a browser with the capability for a look to the attachment in an evaluated manner (Mozilla SVG instead of Firefox would have shown a fine picture! Indeed - for pure browsing I'm always using a stable browser, not a nightly build with even restricted error messaging, some of the mozilla developers will do the same). It isn't really a strange idea to use a stable browser without the newest and therefore most critical features for a first look into the browser error databank, and not just the error producing alfa test version. Additionally I've the feeling, that the actual state is setting up a severe and unnecessarily efficient distribution center for viruses/worms. (Maybe I'll try to look for that in the later future)
"Severity: trivial" - maybe, but for whom and for what sake?! It was all but trivial for me to expect such a reaction, when I sent my first xml source as an error message appendix. This source was not seen by the maintainer - using a standard mozilla browser he was seeing no SVG/xml source at all, only its css part. Therefore there was no error handling for some month. This is indeed the worst case possible. Some mozilla maintainers, e.g. the ones for bug #288165, seems to have another view to trivial situations as the maintainers for this bug 294634. There is a trivial reaction by me - nearly no further unnecessary work to detect trivial bugs like mozilla bugs. Sorry. But you should think for a better training of maintainers and all bug message writers to avoid or to be able to cope with trivial, but irritating situations, when you're unable to make an user interface avoiding them.
Don't let a single person's opinion disturb you. It seems like a whole bunch of INVALID bugs was marked "trivial" today for some reason.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.