321227 - Page requires a plug-in when no plug-in should be needed.

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 316418

(Toolkit Graveyard :: Plugin Finder Service, defect)

Description

[scoobie]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5

The page in question is one of my creation. When viewed, Firefox requires a plugin, but when you search for it, it can't find anything.

The page in question requires no plugins. It contains only an iFrame containing one URL, Javascript and one Embeded URL. The embeded URL does not require a plugin when viewed at top level, nor does the framed page.

This error is only prevelant in Firefox version 1.5, in previous versions and in the latest Mozilla Browser, (build 2005070205), the stated web page works just fine. For more examples of this error, see http://covertlinks.com/examples/



Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. View http://covertlinks.com/test/uc_amazing_list_machine.htm or the links on http://covertlinks.com/examples/
2.
3.

Actual Results:  
Plugin pop-up requires additional plugin.

Expected Results:  
Clean page view, no plugin required.

I state that this is a Major Problem below because I sell a software program that creates pages like this. If not fixed, it could ruin my business. Thanks.

Comment 1

[Will May]

Looking at the source of your page, it seems like Firefox doesn't like the idea of an embed tag pointing at an html file.

Comment 2

[Will May]

Attachment: Minimal testcase

Comment 3

[Ria Klaassen (not reading all bugmail)]

This changed between 1.9a1_2005111105 and 1.9a1_2005111113.

http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=PhoenixTinderbox&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2005-11-11+04%3A00%3A00&maxdate=2005-11-11+13%3A00%3A00&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot

Comment 4

[Elmar Ludwig]

This is a dup, see bug 316418. And I'm still not convinced that this behaviour is actually a bug.

Ria: If that is correct, the checkin for bug 309521 is a likely candidate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 316418 ***