Closed Bug 404661 (aboutconfig) Opened 17 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Remove "this gun is loaded" from the about:config warning

Categories

(Core :: General, defect, P3)

defect

Tracking

()

VERIFIED FIXED
mozilla1.9beta3

People

(Reporter: netrolller.3d, Assigned: beltzner)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: late-l10n)

Attachments

(3 files, 4 obsolete files)

The title says it all. We don't want more delicious delicacies, especially not war references.
See bug 339720, comment #37 and bug 339720, comment #38. Recommend WONTFIX.
Alias: unloadthegun
Component: Preferences: Backend → XP Miscellany
QA Contact: prefs → brendan
Whiteboard: WONTFIX?
Definitely not. It's unacceptable to have "funny" strings in an application that has 15%+ market share. Also, some parents filter weapon-related websites from their children. Should they filter about:config or the entire Firefox as well? Weapon- and war-related humor is definitely a no-go.
I have to say I'm inclined to agree with Stefanik (his intent, if not his delivery).  I think if we want to retain a "sense of fun" we can do that with alternate locales or something else.  The released Firefox should strive for professional and approachable wherever possible.  If the word "gun" seems either unprofessional or unapproachable to some, then it is easy and costs us nothing to choose some less inflammatory verbiage.
I voted for this bug. I believe others that feel strongly should do the same thing.
Taking.

This isn't WONTFIX, but at the same time, I reject arguments that our success means that we have to undertake a stolid and professional demeanor. At the same time, we should take obvious care to not use idioms and turns of phrase that can be easily understood as upsetting.
Assignee: nobody → beltzner
Whiteboard: WONTFIX?
Possibly we should also investigate whether the "Crash! Bang! Boom!" message is appropriate for users who have possibly lost a relative in the 9/11 attack.
Possibly we should also investigate whether the "Crash! Bang! Boom!" message of the crash reporter is appropriate for users who have possibly lost a relative in the 9/11 attack.
Ugh, double post, sorry...
How about, "Careful, you'll put your eye out!"
I think it's a stretch to find the "be careful, this gun is loaded" reference as being significantly offensive. It's not glorifying firearms, suggesting violence ("change these settings and we'll shoot you!"), or even promoting a particular political view of firearms. Loaded guns merit caution, changing settings merit caution, end of metaphor.

If you try hard enough, you can find some way to cast anything as being potentially offensive... Calling software issues "bugs" may be a pejorative phrasing to entomologists, and those who appreciate the benefits insects bring to the ecology. Shall we also rename "Firefox" to avoid distressing victims of fire? [In the US alone, fire annually kills ~3000 people and injures ~15,000.] Landmines are also a hot-button political issue, and yet I've seen nary a complaint about our nightly "Minefield" builds.
My proposal: "Ba careful, hazardous area!", complete with a biohazard sign or a radioactive trefoil. Still maintains a sense of fun, without a weapon reference.
Also, when I first read "Crash! Bang! Boom!", the first thing that come to my mind was 9/11. Knowing that I'm not an American and have lost no relatives in the attack, yet it still reminded me of 9/11, it is definitely not a good error message. And I can't stress enough that "delicious delicacies" were removed as well, even though it definitely wasn't offensive.
New proposal: "CAUTION: Hazardous area!"
There are users in non-English speaking countries that use the English version of Firefox.  Messages like this should be clear and straight forward, not playful in any way.  Why is "about:config" considered hazardous?  The title should give a concise inkling of this.
I am in agreement with Stefanik.  The weapon reference is not necessary or appropriate.

The reference to guns is only relevant in the US where everyone has the 'right to bear arms.'  In most other parts of the world, few people have the right to or ability to use a gun.

I just don't find this language appropriate.
Flags: blocking1.9?
(In reply to comment #14)
> The weapon reference is not necessary or appropriate.

I disagree about appropriate, but necessary certainly applies.  (I also think it applies to even having this warning page, but that debate's already lost, grumble.)


> The reference to guns is only relevant in the US where everyone has the 'right
> to bear arms.'  In most other parts of the world, few people have the right to
> or ability to use a gun.

Surely that's why it's a string to be localized appropriately to the region?  Non-en-US should choose something else if that's appropriate.
The whole point of a warning page like this is to caution users about changing settings.  Making references to guns or using a playful message of any sort doesn't really fit in this situation, we should not be wasting the users time with silly cognitive dissonance like this.  Make the message simple and concise so users can make a simple decision.  Or just get rid of the warning page altogether.
I said "The weapon reference is not necessary or appropriate."

Jeff Walden:

> I disagree about appropriate, but necessary certainly applies.

Please explain why a weapon reference is necessary.  

John Daggett said this above but I'll say it again.  The en-US builds are used by many users outside of the US.  There is suitably appropriate language that we can use to warn users that does not need to reference weapons.
(In reply to comment #17)
> > I disagree about appropriate, but necessary certainly applies.
> 
> Please explain why a weapon reference is necessary.  

I've been misinterpreted, and perhaps I spoke unclearly; I meant that I think it's appropriate, but I agree it's unnecessary.


> John Daggett said this above but I'll say it again.  The en-US builds are used
> by many users outside of the US.  There is suitably appropriate language that
> we can use to warn users that does not need to reference weapons.

Frankly, I don't think localizations should cater in their idioms to users not in those locales, using builds gotten without going through the normal process to get those builds.  If they can live with the correct spellings for color, center, etc. ;-) they can live with non-native idioms when the intent of the idiom is eminently clear from the rest of the page, or even just the raw emotions the idiom produces.
> Frankly, I don't think localizations should cater in their idioms to users not
> in those locales, using builds gotten without going through the normal process
> to get those builds.  If they can live with the correct spellings for color,
> center, etc. ;-) they can live with non-native idioms when the intent of the
> idiom is eminently clear from the rest of the page, or even just the raw
> emotions the idiom produces.

Except that this is in the context of a user warning where the language should be kept as simple and concise as possible, for *both* English and non-English speakers!!!  Imprecise warnings of impending doom are the hazardous problem here. 

Patch to replace playful warnings:

-<!ENTITY scaryWarningTitle.label "Be careful, this gun is loaded!">
+<!ENTITY scaryWarningTitle.label "Modifying settings here is not recommended!">

-<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "I'll be careful, I promise!">
+<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "Continue">
Your substitutions are less accurate than the playful ones.

The point isn't that you shouldn't use about:config, if that were the case it'd be hidden harder.  The point is that you should only touch things if you know what you're doing, which is what makes the loaded gun analogy apt.

Most users aren't going to see this.  While I'm all for being serious when it's warranted, I think this is a great opportunity to be casual, without compromising the message. FWIW "delicious delicacies" was removed because something instructive needed to go there to explain to users what cookies were.  There's a full paragraph which quite straightforwardly explains what the risk is.  To ensure people read it, a catchy or tongue in cheek heading is actually a *good* idea.

May I suggest something like "Here there be dragons" ? (Here there be lizards?) While I agree that the current metaphor fits the situation perfectly, I think people will more often miss that point and take the imagery too literally.  Guns no longer carry an every day use in society, and unfortunately too many people have been affected by gun violence.  Pretty sure no one's lost a family member to dragons, though.  Just an example, but I think we can come up with apt imagery that isn't a sensitive issue.
(In reply to comment #21)
> Your substitutions are less accurate than the playful ones.
> 
> The point isn't that you shouldn't use about:config, if that were the case
> it'd be hidden harder.  The point is that you should only touch things if
> you know what you're doing, which is what makes the loaded gun analogy apt.

Sorry, but how are these substitutions less accurate?  Boring, perhaps, but how is this less descriptive than any idiomatic metaphor involving guns, dragons or the wicked witch of the west?!?

I'm all for playful dialogs but not in warning message situations.  If we really need to warn about something, then keep it simple and to the point.  Same goes for a crash reporter dialog, if you see one you're not really in the mood to see "Tra La, You've Crashed, Doesn't Life Suck?".

> Most users aren't going to see this.  

Agreed.  Then why is this warning needed at all?!?
Oy. Do we have to suck the life out of everything?

-<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "I'll be careful, I promise!">
+<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "Continue">

The second is lame, dry, and too easy to ignore, as most users are in the habit of just hitting anything that says OK or CONTINUE. The "I'll be careful..." makes them perk up for a moment.

For the warning, we don't need to be Microsoft here, we can communicate the potential hazards of mucking about in about:config without being accountants.

Don't touch that! You might mutate your fingers, or worse, break Firefox!
Be careful or you'll put someone's eye out, or worse, break your browser!
Abandon hope all ye who enter here, you risk breaking Firefox.
This panel is like a china shop, you break it you bought it.
If you think you need to edit something here, you probably don't.
Whatever your problem, this isn't the answer.

Something other than BEIGE people. This is the 21st century! We're all supposed to be outside the box!
(In reply to comment #23)
> Oy. Do we have to suck the life out of everything?
> 
> -<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "I'll be careful, I promise!">
> +<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "Continue">
> 
> The second is lame, dry, and too easy to ignore, as most users are in the habit
> of just hitting anything that says OK or CONTINUE. The "I'll be careful..."
> makes them perk up for a moment.

The point here is that the English Firefox version is used by non-English speaking users for whom non-beige expressions will be confusing.  In non-warning situations that doesn't matter so much but for warning/error/security messages we should be simple and clear.  Remembering those folks does require "thinking outside the box"!
I think people who are extremely unfamiliar with English yet using the English localization are edge cases too small to realistically worry about. We have the largest number of localized versions, so I think this is a really minor issue.
(In reply to comment #25)
> I think people who are extremely unfamiliar with English yet using the English
> localization are edge cases too small to realistically worry about. We have the
> largest number of localized versions, so I think this is a really minor issue.

Do you have facts to back up your claim?

We believe that a not insignificant portion of Firefox users in Japan (double digits) are using the en-US browser.  Providing language that is unambiguous, simple and clear is the "21st century" response, not language that is relevant to only one locale and is inappropriate considering the situation the user is in.
Modest proposal: remove the warning.

/be
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > Your substitutions are less accurate than the playful ones.
> > 
> > The point isn't that you shouldn't use about:config, if that were the case
> > it'd be hidden harder.  The point is that you should only touch things if
> > you know what you're doing, which is what makes the loaded gun analogy apt.
> 
> Sorry, but how are these substitutions less accurate?  

Because your warning says that using about:config isn't recommended. That is wrong.  The warning is "don't touch something if you don't know what it does." I said that in the text you quoted.

> 
> > Most users aren't going to see this.  
> 
> Agreed.  Then why is this warning needed at all?!?
> 

Because there are lots of support sites out there, and tweak sites that tell people about it without providing proper warnings about what you should and shouldn't do. I have no idea what percentage of users have changed stuff in about:config that they shouldn't have, but those are the users the warning is for.  It's more akin to the "you're leaving an encrypted page" dialogs than it is to a crash report.
> Providing language that is unambiguous,
> simple and clear is the "21st century" response, not language that is relevant
> to only one locale and is inappropriate considering the situation the user is
> in.
> 

We make up names for a lot of features that non-English users aren't going to understand right away either.  The actual text of the warning is quite clear and concise.  Forgetting the gun part of it would having a heading people don't understand (the button is pretty clear as it is)still be a problem in that case?  I would personally think that might prompt the user to read the actual text and get the real info, but that's just my guess.
Comment on attachment 292353 [details] [diff] [review]
patch to replace playful warnings

Changing the text means you need to change the entity names, too.
(In reply to comment #28)
> > Sorry, but how are these substitutions less accurate?  
> 
> Because your warning says that using about:config isn't recommended. That is
> wrong.  The warning is "don't touch something if you don't know what it does."

Ok, no problem, let's use "Don't touch anything here if you don't know what it does!".  That's simple, clear and concise, no knowledge of guns required.

(In reply to comment #27)
> Modest proposal: remove the warning.
> 
> /be

I'm interested in this idea. Why is the warning there in the first place? Do we have any data showing that people are messing around in about:config?

Also, is there not data showing that people don't read clickthrough dialogs? If there even is a problem with people changing about:config settings when they shouldn't, it seems likely that they are following directions, and will ignore whatever warnings we put up because "the directions said to, so it must be OK".

While I admit the message amused me personally, I think the point about folks who are non-native English speakers using the English localization being a good point. Even if everyone in a locale we have a translation for is using the localized version (which is definitely not happening), what about locales we *don't* have translations for? Folks there may speak only a little English, enough to navigate menus and that's about it. That may be an invalid argument considering how many localizations we have, but it's still something to consider.

A final set of anecdotes: I've met a number of non-English speakers who say they prefer to use the non-localized version of Adium. Sometimes it's because the localization is incomplete or poor, but other times it's because in many languages the terms for talking about computers are complicated, incomplete, contradictory, and obtuse. The English version is often more internally consistent and, for those with even just a little English knowledge, easier to use.
(In reply to comment #32)
> A final set of anecdotes: I've met a number of non-English speakers who say
> they prefer to use the non-localized version of Adium. Sometimes it's because
> the localization is incomplete or poor, but other times it's because in many
> languages the terms for talking about computers are complicated, incomplete,
> contradictory, and obtuse. The English version is often more internally
> consistent and, for those with even just a little English knowledge, easier to
> use.
> 

<aside>
I'd be one of those people (though I've never mentioned it to you, so w/e). I run Firefox and Mac OS in English as well (and would natively speak Dutch). However, I would like to note that I think that non-native speakers using the English version should be considered evidence that localizations are poor, not that the English version should be accessible to everyone. If our localizations suck (note: not saying they all do per se) then our localizations need to be fixed, rather than making English as accessible to non-native speakers as possible.
</aside>

On topic: I don't have a problem with this warning either way. I can imagine other people might, though, and I also think that the warning gives no clues as to why about:config is dangerous (the caption certainly doesn't, and the explanatory text does not say what "harmful side effects" is supposed to be about), which I would consider a bug no matter whether or not we would want to change the phrasing of the warning itself to contain fewer references to violence, guns, or any other content deemed objectionable by some. If we can solve these two problems in one go, that seems like the best way to move forward to me.
Why are non-native english speakers using en-US instead of en-GB?  Either way,  guns are a pretty big deal in the US (hey, it would be hard to maintain our 17,000 murders each year if we had to use knives! http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_02.html).  We teach elementary school children a bit about gun safety, and show kids movies with people being shot to death (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/).

Personally, I smile each time I see the Firefox dialog, even though we chose to leave out the "this gun is loaded" part for SeaMonkey.

I googled a bit and didn't find any complaints about the message.  I did find a couple people who found it amusing.  I think you're just being overly sensitive.

(In reply to comment #12)
> New proposal: "CAUTION: Hazardous area!"

I think most Americans would find that pretty lame.
So people here want a non-offensive message that is still quite quirky and lively? Here's my proposal:

-<!ENTITY scaryWarningTitle.label "Be careful, this gun is loaded!">
+<!ENTITY scaryWarningTitle.label "Watch your step!">

-<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "I'll be careful, I promise!">
+<!ENTITY scaryWarningButton.label "Keep going">

(In reply to comment #28)
> > > Most users aren't going to see this.  
> > 
> > Agreed.  Then why is this warning needed at all?!?
> 
> Because there are lots of support sites out there, and tweak sites that tell
> people about it without providing proper warnings about what you should and
> shouldn't do. I have no idea what percentage of users have changed stuff in
> about:config that they shouldn't have, but those are the users the warning is
> for.  It's more akin to the "you're leaving an encrypted page" dialogs than it
> is to a crash report.
 

I don't have any accurate statistics, either, but I can say that we see about one user per week in the Camino forum asking about an about:config setting that's known to be problematic in certain cases (prefetch, nglayout.initialpaint.delay, cache), and I've certainly happened upon a number of those tweak sites pushing the same.  (I've also had a user in the forum point me to his bank, which instructed him to go to about:config and enable every single weak cipher that ships disabled in Gecko 1.8.1!  Of course the bank didn't mention the security implications of doing so....)

I'm not fond of the Firefox scaryWarningTitle text (and, like SeaMonkey, Camino changed it to something more bland), but the warning screen in general certainly seems to be a useful tool to help users who probably shouldn't be mucking around in about:config think twice before doing so.

FWIW, I like comment 35.
(In reply to comment #34)
> Why are non-native english speakers using en-US instead of en-GB?

Because that’s what nightlies are?


My opinion:
Funny — good, weapons — bad.
Though about:config may be dangerous, it is not intended to be so. It is more like a running engine. Well, maybe not running, just about to be run; not sure about that; also dangerous, though.
(In reply to comment #37)
> > Why are non-native english speakers using en-US instead of en-GB?
> Because that’s what nightlies are?

Oh well, because the most reliable directory to get nightlies from contains en-US nightlies.
+'ing and setting to P3.  Beltzner, please re-prioritize as necessary.
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9+
Priority: -- → P3
Also includes some XPFE changes since that app shares from toolkit from what I can tell. They're harmless, just changing entity names.
Attachment #299392 - Flags: ui-review+
Attachment #299392 - Flags: review?(gavin.sharp)
Comment on attachment 299392 [details] [diff] [review]
s/gun/page/ on about:config warning page

Took a look per request on IRC, looks reasonable.
Attachment #299392 - Flags: review+
Comment on attachment 299392 [details] [diff] [review]
s/gun/page/ on about:config warning page

a=beltzner for 1.9
Attachment #299392 - Flags: review?(gavin.sharp) → approval1.9+
When the patch to toolkit and xpfe lands, could the checkin-wrangler please also land this patch to update Camino's copy of config.dtd to use the new entity names so we won't be broken.  Thanks!
Keywords: checkin-needed
Checking in toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/config.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/config.dtd,v  <--  config.dtd
new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10
done
Checking in toolkit/components/viewconfig/content/config.xul;
/cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/components/viewconfig/content/config.xul,v  <--  config.xul
new revision: 1.13; previous revision: 1.12
done
Checking in xpfe/global/resources/content/config.xul;
/cvsroot/mozilla/xpfe/global/resources/content/config.xul,v  <--  config.xul
new revision: 1.22; previous revision: 1.21
done
Checking in xpfe/global/resources/locale/en-US/config.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/xpfe/global/resources/locale/en-US/config.dtd,v  <--  config.dtd
new revision: 1.11; previous revision: 1.10
done
Checking in camino/embed-replacements/locale/en-US/global/config.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/camino/embed-replacements/locale/en-US/global/config.dtd,v  <--  config.dtd
new revision: 1.3; previous revision: 1.2
done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.9 M11
Version: unspecified → Trunk
"This page is loaded" sounds like an HTTP status message to me.
I double Dão. "This page is loaded" is a strange warning. You usually want the page to load. I don't even know how to translate that.

How about "This tool is loaded" or sth. like that? I'll use that as a Lithuanian translation, but come on, you can do better!
Indeed, 'loaded' is confusing without the gun reference, and the message is now quite hard to translate I imagine.

I think just "Be Careful!" is a good title assuming WONTFIX isn't an option...

Also, can I just say I think comment 6 is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

I agree with comment 5; Mozilla, like Google, shouldn't take themselves too seriously! I smile when I see messages like "Hooray, no spam here!" or other such light-hearted messages.
I hate this bug with every fiber of my being.
so, why did we change this again?  We seem to be worse off than when we started...
(In reply to comment #46)
> I double Dão. "This page is loaded" is a strange warning. You usually want the
> page to load. I don't even know how to translate that.
> 
> How about "This tool is loaded" or sth. like that? I'll use that as a
> Lithuanian translation, but come on, you can do better!
> 

"This page is loaded" is a message that might be a double entendre, but is not easily understandable by non-English speakers. "Loaded" as a reference to something that is dangerous, is not even mentioned in the dictionary (see <http://m-w.com/dictionary/loaded>). Loaded with options, yes. And "this gun is loaded" is also understandable, even when the user doesn't understand why a gun should be involved.

Non-English speakers will think that it applies to the web (loading from the network). And ofcourse, the page is loaded, that was the whole point of typing in the url.

Just change it into "Be careful, this might be dangerous" or something similar.
Fine. Back it out. I'm going to go find a loaded gun and use it on myself.

I'll come up with something else.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
What's wrong with "Hazardous area"? In the Hungarian translation (where "Be careful, this gun is loaded!" came out sounding as if it was said by a terrorist holding a gun to your girlfriend's head, warning you to act as he says, otherwise he fires the gun, and not as a friendly warning that you can *seriously* mess thing up by messing around in about:config - a possible localization problem in many other languages!), it has already been changed to that.
Why would each locale need to have a direct translation?  That's what localization notes are for.  Express the point of the string, and l10n maintainers can change it if necessary.
No matter what happens, the next patch will include a localization string.
This has now gone off into the weeds.  See the URL.  The content currently is not offensive, though it may be slightly confusing.  But this is a piece of UI which normal users will never see, and there are far far more important things than the warning we display before entering about:config.

If we want to get a localization note added to make clear that localizers should translate the spirit of the string, great.  File a followup bug.

If we want to get a better string, sure, knock yourselves out.  File a followup bug.  That bug should _not_ block any release of Firefox, it pales in comparison to dozens of other non-blockers which have real and quantifiable negative impacts on our users.

People had differing opinions on the offensiveness of the previous string, therefore we have replaced that string, and we should close this bug.  The bug was not "find a better string" its "don't offend sensibilities" and that is now FIXED.  Move on to other, more appropriate bugs to address followup issues.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
I think calling the concerns expressed in this bug "bikeshed" is at least a little bit insulting.

People raised valid concerns (whether or not we decided to responded to them or not, they were valid nonetheless).  Some people (not just myself) made alternate suggestions.  A completely different string that actually *means* something other than the intended meaning was chosen, without even being mentioned here.

That's two *valid* concerns. If beltzner has more important things to work on, which obviously he does, why was he writing this string in the first place? There are clearly a number of trusted community members who care about this string who could have come up with something for him to review, or choose from that keep all of the concerns in mind including the idea of making it fun.

We could do that now, as mconnor seems to suggest, but from the tone of the rest of the comment, and the link to "bikeshed," it seems like it wouldn't really be welcome at this point (nor did it seem welcome at any point during this discussion).
Frankly, the other suggestions didn't meet the goal of keeping the UI surprising enough to be noticeable.

It is absolutely true that this is a bikeshed argument, fwiw. That doesn't mean that I don't care about it, as offending users isn't really my objective, either.

I will keep working on this because I care to do so, and people are free to suggest whatever they want. That doesn't mean that we'll take those suggestions; never has, never will.
philor came up with a great suggestion over IRC

Smokey - we'll need a camino patch; I don't have that tree. :(
Attachment #292353 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #299392 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #299646 - Flags: ui-review+
Attachment #299646 - Flags: review?(gavin.sharp)
Comment on attachment 299646 [details] [diff] [review]
using philor's suggestion, adds localization note

beltzner, is there a special reason this (updated) version is reverting s/configWarning/scaryWarning/ (changing it back to scary).

Won't that de-flag the l10n boxen from needing to update these entities?
(In reply to comment #53)
> Why would each locale need to have a direct translation?  That's what
> localization notes are for.  Express the point of the string, and l10n
> maintainers can change it if necessary.
> 

But then again, if entire Mozilla can't come up with a good idea why do you think localizers can?
Without a simple base, localizers will just pick a random string which might be incorrect, imprecise, or completely inappropriate.

Or will just say "Warning" and have it over with... That's what I'd do, especially if I ever convince self and others to make en-AU version.
(In reply to comment #59)
> Won't that de-flag the l10n boxen from needing to update these entities?

I (perhaps foolishly) figured that it would make them go orange again, since the last change was checked in. I'll attach a new patch with a new name, just in case.
scaryWarning* -> aboutWarning*
Attachment #299646 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #299646 - Flags: review?(gavin.sharp)
Comment on attachment 299667 [details] [diff] [review]
using philor's suggestion, adds localization note, revs entities

>Index: toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/config.dtd
>===================================================================
>+<!-- LOCALIZATION NOTE: scaryWarningTitle.label should be attention grabbing and playful -->
>+<!ENTITY aboutWarningTitle.label "This might void your warranty!">

You (or your checkin-wrangler) probably want to make the l10n note use the current entity name :(
Here's the Camino patch to go with attachment 299667 [details] [diff] [review].  beltzner, there are also two aspirin for you ;)
Attachment #299429 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment on attachment 299667 [details] [diff] [review]
using philor's suggestion, adds localization note, revs entities

>Index: toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/config.dtd
>===================================================================
>+<!-- LOCALIZATION NOTE: scaryWarningTitle.label should be attention grabbing and playful -->
>+<!ENTITY aboutWarningTitle.label "This might void your warranty!">

Nit: s/scary/about/ in the localization note.

r+ing since beltzner had me do the first one and reed is antsy. :-)
Attachment #299667 - Flags: review+
Reed: can you fix that localization note on checkin? Muchos gracias!
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Checking in toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/config.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/locales/en-US/chrome/global/config.dtd,v  <--  config.dtd
new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11
done
Checking in toolkit/components/viewconfig/content/config.xul;
/cvsroot/mozilla/toolkit/components/viewconfig/content/config.xul,v  <--  config.xul
new revision: 1.14; previous revision: 1.13
done
Checking in xpfe/global/resources/content/config.xul;
/cvsroot/mozilla/xpfe/global/resources/content/config.xul,v  <--  config.xul
new revision: 1.23; previous revision: 1.22
done
Checking in xpfe/global/resources/locale/en-US/config.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/xpfe/global/resources/locale/en-US/config.dtd,v  <--  config.dtd
new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11
done
Checking in camino/embed-replacements/locale/en-US/global/config.dtd;
/cvsroot/mozilla/camino/embed-replacements/locale/en-US/global/config.dtd,v  <--  config.dtd
new revision: 1.4; previous revision: 1.3
done
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago16 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Flags: in-testsuite-
+<!ENTITY aboutWarningTitle.label "This might void your warranty!">

I know this was intended to be somehow funny, but I find it silly... What's wrong with "Warning"? Comment 0 says "we don't want delicious delicacies". OK, so how exactly is the current 'solution' different from "delicious delicacies"? 

BTW, how can you void something that does not exist in the first place? (Firefox EULA point 5).
This is RESO FIXED. It's over. Let it go. Take a deep breath and move on. God forbid there should be some humor on Earth.
>> aboutWarningTitle.label => "This might void your warranty!"

does that imply, if I dont continue I will have warranty.
we considered that and decided that it was ok.

note: if you don't have a warranty, then using it doesn't void it anymore than not using it. but the goal is to make you think. if you sat down and thought about it, and decided that you didn't have a warranty and didn't mind, you thought, and we're happy.

if you happen to Google for the string, you'll quickly find out that you don't have a warranty; and that our goal is to tell you that if you don't know what you're doing or worse are following someone else's potentially bad advice, then you probably shouldn't do it. In each case our goal is achieved.
Why is the toolkit talking about 'void your warranty' and camino/xpfe about 'Be careful!'? Why this difference? Just 'Be careful!? would be good enough for the toolkit, when it is also good for camino/xpfe...
(In reply to comment #68)
> +<!ENTITY aboutWarningTitle.label "This might void your warranty!">
> 
> I know this was intended to be somehow funny, but I find it silly... What's
> wrong with "Warning"? Comment 0 says "we don't want delicious delicacies". OK,
> so how exactly is the current 'solution' different from "delicious delicacies"? 
> 

delicious delicacies was the description of what cookies were, and needed to be replaced to explain cookies to users. In this case we're talking about the heading, not the description.  The description of the warning always has been and always will be straightforward and plainly stated, as the cookies description was changed to be.
Depends on: 416956
Why on Earth does this about:config warning message has to be playful and different from other warning messages (like from the one when leaving an encrypted site and others)? Please be consistent! This is a publicly used application, so it should express itself in public manners. Since other messages in this application are normal, make the about:config warning message the same. Thank you.
Please consider this one to be the about:config warning message.
Attachment #310074 - Attachment mime type: application/xml-dtd → text/plain
Because we're human, and sometimes humans like to have a little fun. 
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
(In reply to comment #76)
> Because we're human, and sometimes humans like to have a little fun. 
What about:robots?
Then make all messages in Firefox such childish... Since that will not happen, I propose that the about:config warning message follows the consistent message policy and becomes a normal one. There is no reason whatsoever that the about:config warning message should be playful. Why does it have to be only the about:config warning message special? Be consistent! There's no reason for playfulness here.
about:config is a power user feature.  Power user features often have more humor than features for the masses.  Accept this, accept the fact that Firefox 3 will ship with the warning as is (we are string frozen at this point), and move on.  Ask yourself - does it really matter?

Please don't make beltzner commit suicide (comment 51)
Please stop. It's done, over, and decided.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html
Alias: aboutconfig
Component: XP Miscellany → General
QA Contact: brendan → general
> The title says it all. We don't want more delicious delicacies, 
> especially not war references.

Instead a long discussion after such an idiotic "bugreport" really errors should removed dmaned: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495196

3.5 has a "little" caching problem ALSO on linux
After "clear cache" and reload most time NOTHING happens and after a secornd reload the page refreshs

What is so really difficult on "clear cache" and "reload"
There is no need to SHIFT+Reload and such ****
If a user clicks at reload he means reload, the whole page and all linked contents
(In reply to comment #81)
> Instead a long discussion after such an idiotic "bugreport" really errors
> should removed dmaned: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495196
> 
> 3.5 has a "little" caching problem ALSO on linux
> After "clear cache" and reload most time NOTHING happens and after a secornd
> reload the page refreshs
> 
> What is so really difficult on "clear cache" and "reload"
> There is no need to SHIFT+Reload and such crap
> If a user clicks at reload he means reload, the whole page and all linked
> contents
And why did you post in this bug?  Was your goal to just annoy everyone on the cc list by chance?  Please read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html and think before pressing the commit button next time.
The reason is simple: bugs are ignored over a long time with NO RESPONSE and the whole discussion above had to be closed after the initial bugreport from one who have no real problems and is searching for them

My try to push the other one seems to be sucessfully
What should i do - I never saw any bugreport answered from anyone i know personally over years!

Robert Strong [:rs] (do not email) <robert.bugzilla@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|Shell Integration           |Drag and Drop
            Product|Firefox                     |Core
            Summary|Expires / gzip headers not  |Drag / drop results in
                   |correct interpreted on      |corrupted image on Mac OS X
                   |MACOSX                      |- expires / gzip headers
                   |                            |not correct interpreted on
                   |                            |MACOSX
          QAContact|shell.integration@firefox.b |drag-drop@core.bugs
                   |ugs                         |
You should comment in the relevant bug, not in a completely different one. If you continue to spam unrelated bugs, your account will get closed.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: