Save as: should add extension to match content coding




17 years ago
2 years ago


(Reporter: c, Unassigned)


(Blocks: 1 bug)

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)




17 years ago
This bug is a successor of bug 35956. Now that pages with an HTTP Content-Encoding
preserve that coding when being saved, the save-as dialog should really suggest
a filename using the appropriate system naming conventions for that coding (e.g.
append ".gz").

Related bugs are bug 31519 (same for content /type/) and bug 52282 (for viewing
the saved files).


17 years ago
Blocks: 68420


17 years ago
Blocks: 66836
No longer blocks: 68420


17 years ago
Blocks: 68420
Assignee: blake → mscott

Comment 2

17 years ago
*** Bug 100530 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 100737 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
spam: over to File Handling. i have not changed the assigned developer [or the
other fields for that matter], so if anyone realizes that a bug should have a
more appropriate owner, go ahead and change it. :)
Component: XP Apps: GUI Features → File Handling
QA Contact: sairuh → petersen

Comment 5

16 years ago
What's the status on this bug? I can't find a more relevant place for the
problem I have.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-GB; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
Any time I try to download a .tar.gz file mozilla tries to append ".tar" to the
name, resulting in "fnord.tar.gz.tar"
The server response includes:

Content-Type: application/x-tar
Content-Encoding: x-gzip

but Mozilla ignores the Content-Encoding and suggests an extension based only on
the Content-Type, even though the file has the "right" extensions already: .tar.gz

This isn't just a slight inconvenience, it means it is impossible to open a
tar.gz straight into an archiving tool such as winzip - because Mozilla passes
the "suggested" filename to winzip, which then tries to open the gzipped file as
a tar file, and fails. You have to choose to save the file, fix the filename,
then launch winzip manually. If you frequently download .tar.gz files on
windows, this is extremely annoying.

Comment 6

16 years ago
Aye.  Is there anything wrong with concatenating content-type and
content-encoding?  Not that I know this section of the code, but seems trivial.
Even if, say, the tpe was test/plain and encoding was x-zip, is there any OS
that *wouldn't* understand ?

Comment 7

16 years ago
I don't think that example is realistic. zip is an archiver, so I don't think it
would qualify as an encoding type the way gzip does.

Comment 8

16 years ago
I've seen x-zip used in several places for accept-encoding and content-encoding,
and described as the zip algo (one pkzip uses).

Just because it is both an archiver and a compressor doesn't disqualify it from
being used to encode single files.  I was using it as an extreme example, and I
still think that most OSs would understand

Comment 9

16 years ago
Googling a bit, I think such applications of "x-zip" as you describe are in
error. It looks like historically "x-zip" has been used to identify gzip before
it was a "g" thang. That is, back in the day, the default extension for gzip was
".z" and the associated encoding type was "x-zip".

I haven't yet found a page describing exactly when the change occurred; but I
suspect the rationale for it was too-subtle difference between ".z" and ".Z"
(Unix compress, "x-compress").

What this means is that the Right Thing for an application to do is to treat the
encoding type "x-zip" as identical to "gzip". Note that while gzip and PKZip use
the same algorithm, the two are not compatible since the former is strictly a
file compressor and the latter is an archiver.

Comment 10

16 years ago
Interesting that they are the same algorithm - did not know that, since original
"pkzip" algo (which of course pkzip ripped off), was open to all, with
appropriate accredition.  Might've been a non-commercial use requirement too.
In any case, couldn't be changed to a gpl license, which I assume gzip uses. 
There'd be license conflicts.  Like trying to rebundle OpenBSD code as GPL.

Alright, so examples are...
And I still think that any major OS can handle that nowdays.

Comment 11

16 years ago
What's the last known good version of Mozilla without the save extension fault ?
I have users/clients who are very confused by this behaviour.
so... how does this bug relate to bug 90490?

Comment 13

15 years ago
Regarding comment 12.
I'd say they relate identically? ;)


10 years ago
Assignee: mscott → nobody
QA Contact: chrispetersen → file-handling


2 years ago
Component: File Handling → File Handling
Product: Core → Firefox
Version: Trunk → unspecified
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.