331319 - Introduce an easier way to allow sites to cut/copy/paste (possibly a dialog) via scripts

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 153868

(Firefox :: Security, enhancement)

Description

[Micah Wolfe]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Firefox/1.5.0.1

Bug 309943 is listed as being resolved, but unless simply renaming a "bug" a "feature" has become the SOP for programmers then that is simply not true. I have a webmail client that utilizes javascript to attach inline HTML files to emails. The only way it can accomplish this by accessing HTML saved to the clipboard. Instead of changing a file to disable this security feature (which is simply NOT a smart thing to do) how about replacing the "unprivileged scripts" dialog (which is useless) with an "allow once" option?

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Copy anything to the clipboard
2. Try to paste it into a field via a java app (I was using Horde webmail)
3.

Actual Results:  
Dialogue box: "Unprivilidged scripts cannot access Cut/Copy/Paste programatically..."

Expected Results:  
Given me an option to allow once, allow always, etc... Similar to how Firefox behaves with popups. Certainly there has to be some better way to handle this than  what you reccomend on this page http://www.mozilla.org/editor/midasdemo/securityprefs.html

This is the kind of bug that, if not resolved, will eventually make me discard Firefox and switch to another browser.

Comment 1

[zug_treno]

Related to Core bug 153868 comment 13 or Suite bug 239481?

Comment 2

[mattias.waldau]

Yes, please allow copy/paste for JavaScript. The dialog once/forever is a very good idea.

Since IE allows this, the current solution is to say to users: If you want cut-and-paste, use IE.

In IE, you do 

   window.clipboardData.setData("Text", data);

and

    window.clipboardData.getData('Text')

Comment 3

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to comment #0)
> Bug 309943 is listed as being resolved, but unless simply renaming a "bug" a
> "feature" has become the SOP for programmers then that is simply not true. 

bug 309943 aka bug 309942 was closed by the reporter, who is cc: on the this bug.

don't know if this is a critical point, but bug 153868 is marked depends on bug 79787 which was marked as WONTFIX (perhaps incorrectly?) by a developer.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 153868 ***