299543 - Showing already encoded umlauts and special characters in "View Selection Source"

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 236465

(Toolkit :: View Source, defect)

Description

[Martin Braun]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050517 Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-2)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050517 Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-2)

German Umlauts and common special characters like © & ö ä are encoded in their
HTML-Valid replacements like © & ö ä on a Website (XHTML 1.0
Strict). When using "View Page Source" they are shown as their replacements, but
when viewing the source with the "View Selection Source" the are already encoded
and not shown as the equivalent HTML-Valid strings. So, a ä is shown as ä
in "View Selection Source".

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Load a website with some umlauts or special chars
2. Compare "View Page Source" output with the one of "View Selection Source"
concerning the umlauts and special chars.
Actual Results:  
Inpropper display of umlauts and special chars, written as HTML-valid replacements.

Expected Results:  
Display the unencoded HTML-Strings

Comment 1

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

View selection source shows the DOM source, hence the discrepancy between it and
the normal View Source.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 236465 ***

Comment 2

[Martin Braun]

Ok, sorry for creating a duplicate.
But:
The naming with "Selection Source" is very unhappy because the user supposes to
se e a cut-out of the original source. Maybe it'll be the best to create a third
context-button for showing DOM Sources like "Show DOM". That would fix this
confusing naming. Or, removing the DOM View completely and use it on Extensions
like Webdeveloper only because the average Joe is really not interested in DOM.

Comment 3

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

Well, getting the DOM source is really the only way to show the selection
source, given that the selection could have been produced dynamically
(document.write, for example).

Really, all of this is well discussed in the other bug, so you may want to read
through the comments there if you're interested.