98021 - BUTTON tags in template/default/attachment/edit.atml do not work with NS 4.7x

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Bugzilla :: Attachments & Requests, defect, P1)

Description

[David D. Kilzer (ddk)]

The BUTTON tags used in template/default/attachment/edit.atml do
not work with Netscape Communicator 4.72 under Linux (RH6.2).

Recommend that they be changed to INPUT tags with TYPE="BUTTON".

Comment 1

[David D. Kilzer (ddk)]

Attachment: Proposed fix to BUTTON tags

Comment 2

[David D. Kilzer (ddk)]

NS 4.72 also generates a happy-fun JavaScript error:

JavaScript Error: http://HOSTNAME/attachment.cgi?id=1&action=edit, line
115:

document.getElementById is not a function. 

Comment 3

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

My god, the page looks horrible in NS4.x.  I'm not sure how much of an
improvement it is to fix the buttons, since it fools people into thinking they
can actually do something with them, which they can't in NS4.x because it
doesn't have the necessary DOM support.  Ideally these buttons wouldn't even
show up in browsers that cannot take advantage of them.  What's the best way to
do that?

Comment 4

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

since the buttons require javascript to operate, how about dynamically inserting
them via document.write() from the javascript?

Comment 5

[David D. Kilzer (ddk)]

Assigning bug to myself.  Added appropriate keywords.

Comment 6

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Comment on attachment 48027 [details] [diff] [review]
Proposed fix to BUTTON tags

This is the wrong solution since the buttons would not work on Netscape
even if they were INPUT tags.

Comment 7

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

Maybe the CGI should sniff User-Agent?

Comment 8

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

A horrible but working hack would be to put the buttons inside a <NOLAYER> tag pair.

What other significant browsers don't support IFRAMEs apart from 4.x? If it's
only 4.x, we can combine the noiframe stuff with the nobutton stuff.

Gerv

Comment 9

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Anyone know about the level of iframe support cross-browser?

Gerv

Comment 10

[David D. Kilzer (ddk)]

Info about iframes support in browsers:

  http://webreview.com/browsers/browsers.shtml
  http://www.htmlcompendium.org/  [Navigate in, "HTML", "Attribute Pagess",
                                   then "<iframe>"]

Comment 11

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

We are currently trying to wrap up Bugzilla 2.16.  We are now close enough to
release time that anything that wasn't already ranked at P1 isn't going to make
the cut.  Thus this is being retargetted at 2.18.  If you strongly disagree with
this retargetting, please comment, however, be aware that we only have about 2
weeks left to review and test anything at this point, and we intend to devote
this time to the remaining bugs that were designated as release blockers.

Comment 12

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

Should be a 2.16 blocker.

Comment 13

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Is Lynx a supported platform for Bugzilla? It seems to be the only other browser
we might care about which doesn't support IFRAMEs. 

I think the <nolayer> hack might do for 2.16. Espcially given that it's a
template, so people can fix it another way if it doesn't work for them.

Gerv

Comment 14

[Dave Miller [:justdave]]

Yep, Lynx is supported.  And I just tried looking at the attachment editor
screen, and believe it or not, Lynx 2.8.3 supports IFRAME. :)  The buttons do
show up, however, they're not selectable.  But the big textarea is already
visible (however not pre-loaded with the quoted attachment).

Comment 15

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

myk: are you the man to fix this?

Gerv

Comment 16

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Yep.  The solution is to sniff for document.getElementById and document.write
those buttons if it exists, since only browsers implementing that method are
going to be able to do the DOM manipulation these features require.

Comment 17

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Attachment: patch v2: document.writes the buttons if browser implements getElementById

This version works on Mozilla and doesn't print the button text in Netscape
4.x.

Comment 18

[Christian Reis]

Myk: Won't that generate JS strict warnings? I thought the way to check for an
implementation was 

if ( typeof(document.getElementByIdea) != "undefined" ) {
  ...
}
It's what I do in my JS at least :-)

Comment 19

[Christian Reis]

-> myk 

Comment 20

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Attachment: patch v3: better way of detecting getElementById implementation

uses typeof to avoid strict JavaScript warnings

Comment 21

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 67438 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v3: better way of detecting getElementById implementation

r=kiko

Comment 22

[Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez]]

Checking in edit.atml;
/cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/template/default/attachment/edit.atml,v  <--
 edit.atml
new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7
done