If you have a mail that consist of the following lines: http:// ftp:// chrome:// file:// killer:// both chrome:// and file:// are reconized as a URL's and are hyperlinked. The other ones aren't! Pressing the <file://> and <chrome://> links with my Mozilla does absolutly nuthing! Build 2000052020 on Win2K
isn't this a duplicate of bug 40028
gemal, please create a test web page (HTML) with a <chrome://> link for andreas
Not sure I understand.. Since I'm having the problem with URL's in a mail, not in a webpage.
I've send myself a very similar message and started to investigate. ftp:// and http:// are not hyperlinked because they are not valid URLs, the host is missing. file:// and chrome:// are valid, so they are hyperlinked as described by Ben in bug 40028. I assume they don't work because they are caught by the scriptsecuritymanager as not allowed. I will try to confirm this assumption soon. Maybe Ben's code can incorporate the ScriptManager too and only highlight URLs if they pass it.
Yes, file:// and chrome:// are caught by nsScriptSecurityManager::CheckLoadURI. I suggest to call it in Ben's code in addition to create the URL and based on the result hyperlink the URI or not. Moving to Ben Bucksch.
Assignee: andreas.otte → mozilla
Removing bug 19313 as dependency. Severity enhancement. Over to mscott. (I'm not in the mood to implement this. I'd mark it LATER.)
Assignee: mozilla → mscott
No longer blocks: 19313
Severity: normal → enhancement
also, I see that layout (or mail?) is recognizing: ftp:// urls (but clicking them doesn't work?) gopher:// urls telnet:// urls
OS: Windows 2000 → All
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: chrome:// is reconized as a URL → chrome:// is reconized as a URL (also gopher:// telnet://)
Adding brakets in summary, since the URL is supported to end after "//".
Summary: chrome:// is reconized as a URL (also gopher:// telnet://) → <chrome://> is reconized as a URL (also <gopher://> <telnet://>)
40028 says this is a duplicate of it, and it is verified/invalid?! It sounds like this is still and issue, but what needs to be fixed? Is there any point in these scheme-only URLs being linkified? what is the behavior when you click on them?
mass move, v2. qa to me.
QA Contact: tever → benc
ok, i tried this with mozilla 1.7, and i didn't see the chrome:// URL get highlighted. http://, ftp://, and file:// were highlighted.
Darin: I'm assuming you are talking about the way this works in text email?
Summary: <chrome://> is reconized as a URL (also <gopher://> <telnet://>) → mozTXTtoHTML:<chrome://> is reconized as a URL (also <gopher://> <telnet://>)
This isn't on anyone's work list and realistically is an abandoned idea. I will close as wontfix - if someone has a patch or is actively going to work on it please reopen. (but please, only then.)
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.