Broken off from bug 75371, where people keep asking for an "Ask Me" preference for JavaScript functions. Once there is a back end, it'll need UI. Doron, since you have bug 75371 I'm giving this to you. Feel free to reassign it.

Confirming, this is not UID, trying b-general

This is _too_ UID. We need a design for UI for accessing this functionality. Once we have that, this goes to XP Apps: GUI.

Popup Manager In The Sidebar Idea Key I tried to use items that are already in the browser to represent the Popup Manager. The Folders represent open windows, that YOU have open manually. The Green lights say it is OK to open the window automatically. The Red Flags say NEVER open the Popup automatically. If the fields are blank, user intervention is required, but by default the popup will remain closed. If the person likes they can manually open a popup by clicking on it in the Popup Manager Site area. If the pop is open this will bring that window to the foreground. You can kill all open popup by selecting the desired windows in the list and pressing the delete key. Underneath the list is additional information about the site. Additional information will give stats on the popup, size of window, location of window, etc? just fun stuff. Open will open the window, and Don?t open will not open the window. The check box I have also included the option to block ALL popup coming from a selected site. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

The back end for this, bug 103405 has been resolved WONTFIX. Is this bug still valid?

Mathew: Take a look at bug 114994: A sidebar for denied popup windows. This bug is about an ask-me pref. I think your attachment for the sidebar popup manager would go better there :-)

Since no-one has piped up with any reasons to keep this bug open, and the back end doesn't look like its happening, INVALID

"because no-one has a good reason to keep it open" is not a good reason to resolve a bug invalid. If it a duplicate, resolve it a duplicate. Otherwise, keep it open until there is a reason to close it.

zach, this bug depends (really depends, not fake depends as we have sometimes( on a WONTFIX bug. This strongly suggests that WONTFIX would be the right thing to do here...

The other bug (bug 103405) was wontfixed for poor reasons. Please keep this bug open until that issue can be properly discussed and hopefully remedied.

Well, I asked over a month ago if this bug was still valid or not and didn't get a reply... Anyone who has a problem with the backend being WONTFIX'd should probably deal with it in bug 103405. (This bug is *completely* useless if 103405 isn't fixed.) But have it your way if you'd like.

Bleh. Alerts are evil, and a popup window offering you the choice of blocking a popup window would be oxymoronic. Or just moronic. Or both. See 103405 comment 5. Marking invalid.

There is no reason to have a dialog to see if people want a dialog to come up. You can allready turn off new windows completely, being able to do it on a site-by-site basis (your bank can use new windows in online banking if you want them too, but not elsewhere) would be nice, but that isn't the idea of this bug report. verif

*** Bug 136750 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Hum, konqueror 3 has this function, i have used it during a week and i find it VERY usefull. You said open a dialog to ask for a popup to open is an oxymoron, i don't agree. A dialog is light, a popup can be very slow to load, to display, and can lead to a pop-up hell. Blocking pop-up on a site-by-site basis could be an option, but this is not the ultimate way: on many sites that i know, pop-ups are ads on some page and usefull fonction on an other page from the same website. Try-it in konqueror and you will be convinced (i hope).

What back-end support does this need? I thought we already had prefs.js control over site use of javascript? There shouldn't be anything else needed in the back end, should there? I guess the one thing it needs is a place to store the settings, as having the UI add rules to the prefs.js seems wrong... Is there anything else needed?

This bug isn't going to fixed. Should be WONTFIX, not INVALID. People still interested in notification, see bug 114994 - popup sidebar.

WONTFIX is the proper resolution. See bug 114994 for a continuation of this bug. Also, take a look at bug 148689 (I'm currently searching for a dupe).

This bug is WONTFIX because replacing a popup with a popup is something we are not going to do. But the bug still exists that people don't know whether a popup has been blocked, therefore people should be alerted in a better way.

If the "Ask Me" window stores the user-decision on a per-site basis, then the user would only be annoyed once, and then could custom-decide which sites could and couldn't have popups - without *ever* being asked again. A very flexible tool. No? REOPEN?

The equivalent can be done with bug 148689 without getting an annoying alert. We are moving away from alerts for warnings (such as when URLs cannot be found), and this would be moving backwards.

Anyway, Peter: Do you know how many different sites there are that have popups? People are going to get this alert so often if the setting is stored independently for each site via a "Don't ask again" pref on the alert it will drive them crazy. Its worse having an alert than a popup because they are harder to get rid of and you can't ignore them because currently they are modal.

As explained in my comment #15, i find that an "ask" dialog is very useful (you must give Konqueror 3 a try !). Could it be possible to implement it as an option, for users like me who like this behaviour in konqu 3 ?

No.

This is probably a different (yet highly related) bug: There needs to be a way to permit certain useful sites (e.g., netscape webmail) to open popups. I tend to agree that *denying* a large number of sites just to enable a _few_ is too annoying. We probably should do it the other way around: Have a list of allowed sites, very similar to "edit / preferences / mail & newsgroups / SEND FORMAT --> HTML Domains. That way the user could copy&paste the domain into that pref and be able to use a site that has useful popups. To allow some finetuning, it may be useful to consider the *depth* of the URL address. So that if the user enters: "http://ncmail.netscape.com" everything AT and BELOW that level can display popups. Have I lost my marbles? Should this be a new bug? Can we morph this bug? BTW. RE comment #22: it is *easier* to get rid of an alert because you just hit <Return> and the dialog goes away (while storing the setting - never to be bothered again). popups are windows that must be closed via aiming at the "x" and clicking it; and they will come back *every* time you visit that site.

About comment #25: The problem with the per-site blocking, is that i know some site where some pop-ups are ads, and some others are useful. In konqueror 3, when i see the "ask" dialog, i know (based on the context), which pop-ups are usefuls and which are not. About the nature of pop-ups, i must add that some pop-ups leads to what some calls a "pop-up hell"== a pop-pup that opens 10 other pop-ups, all very long to download, with flash, sounds.....

Correction: comment #25 was about "per-site *allowing* - not "blocking". That way, you can deny all popups (in "scripts & plugins" pref), and create *exceptions* where you want to allow them (since this will be *much* rarer).