88663 - Inconsistency in the Cookies and Images title

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: Preferences, defect, P4)

Description

[Henrik Gemal]

The title for the Cookies prefs are "Cookie Acceptance Policy" while it at 
Images is "Image Blocking"

Why not the same? In Image Blocking we even talk about "Accept all images"

20010630 on win2k

Comment 1

[sairuh (rarely reading bugmail)]

->morse.

i cannot remember who the UI person is for cookies and images stuff, so asking
several folx for suggestions, or if we should leave it as is... would "Cookie
Blocking" work? the advantage of "Cookie Acceptance Policy" is that it is
accurate...

Comment 2

[Henrik Gemal]

Couldn't we just have:
"Cookie Acceptance Policy"
and
"Image Acceptance Policy"

Comment 3

[Stephen P. Morse]

Agree completely.  Posting patch to make wording consistent.

Comment 4

[Stephen P. Morse]

Attachment: patch to make wording consistent

Comment 5

[Stephen P. Morse]

vishy & blake, please r and sr.  Thanks.

Comment 6

[Viswanath Ramachandran]

Before we check this in, I'd like Jatin and Todd to agree that this is the right 
change in wording. 

Also, there is a matter of timing. We may not wish to change this wording in the 
0.9.4 timeframe since Netscape would like to keep the eMojo documentation 
and UI identical to the Mojo documentation and UI to the extent possible. Could 
german and Jatin comment on whether this change is okay from the UE and docs 
perspective. 

In the case that we would like to keep the wording unchanged (lets see what the 
response is), the best approach would be to move this bug to m0.9.5 or m1.0. 
thanks
Vishy 

Comment 7

[Todd Pringle]

Seems fine to me.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image manager is not
included in commercial builds, right, so this not an issue for Netscape at this
point. 

Comment 8

[Stephen P. Morse]

That's correct.  The only way to get the image manager in the commercial build 
is to set an undocumented pref by hand-editing the prefs.js file.

Comment 9

[Blake Ross]

Yeah, the consistency is better, but I don't understand why it has to sound so
formal and magnificent.  Jatin, what do you think?

Comment 10

[Viswanath Ramachandran]

This string is used in the commercial builds in the Prefs > Privacy and Security
> Images panel (even though Image Manager itself doesnt appear), so lets get
Jatin's feedback on this. Jatin - could you weigh in here? thanks!

Comment 11

[Viswanath Ramachandran]

moving to m0.9.4. 

Comment 12

[Jatin Billimoria]

The use of "Image Acceptance Policy" is fine. It would lead to more consistent
wording, and "Image Blocking" doesn't describe the full scope of the feature.

Comment 13

[Blake Ross]

sr=blake

Comment 14

[Viswanath Ramachandran]

r=vishy. thanks Jatin. thanks for your patience Steve. 

Comment 15

[Stephen P. Morse]

Fix checked in.

Comment 16

[sairuh (rarely reading bugmail)]

vrfy fixed:

linux, 2001.08.15.14-comm
winnt, 2001.08.15.06-comm
mac OS 9.1 [emul on X], 2001.08.15.08-comm

[sidenote] todd: actually, we do have the Images pref panel in comm builds --we
just don't have the particular pref enabled where you can block by server.