User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:55.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/55.0 Build ID: 20170516192431 Steps to reproduce: Have "Nightly" at the beginning of the locationbar: about:accounts about:addons about:cache about:config about:crashes about:downloads about:healthreport about:home about:license about:preferences about:privatebrowsing about:rights about:sessionrestore about:support about:welcomeback Bug: Don't have "Nightly" at the beginning of the locationbar: about: about:about about:buildconfig about:checkerboard about:debugging about:devtools-toolbox about:logo about:memory about:mozilla about:networking about:newtab about:performance about:plugins about:profiles about:robots about:serviceworkers about:sync-log about:sync-tabs about:telemetry about:url-classifier about:webrtc

This was an intentional decision in bug 1051847. For many of those pages, that still seems right - about: and about:about and about:logo and so on aren't user-exposed and so we shouldn't put the chrome icon up there. For some of the pages you list, it would even be wrong - about:sync-log is just some files on disk, it's a straight-up redirect to those files and we shouldn't pretend they're anything else. about:newtab should be treated as a blank page, so that not having the chrome UI is correct, too. For this to be a useful bug you should narrow down the list and we should add icons only to specific pages that should have them but don't. Which of these pages are actually visible from any of Firefox's UI, if about:about doesn't count?

Should(In reply to :Gijs from comment #1) > This was an intentional decision in bug 1051847. For many of those pages, > that still seems right - about: and about:about and about:logo and so on > aren't user-exposed and so we shouldn't put the chrome icon up there. For > some of the pages you list, it would even be wrong - about:sync-log is just > some files on disk, it's a straight-up redirect to those files and we > shouldn't pretend they're anything else. about:newtab should be treated as a > blank page, so that not having the chrome UI is correct, too. > > For this to be a useful bug you should narrow down the list and we should > add icons only to specific pages that should have them but don't. Which of > these pages are actually visible from any of Firefox's UI, if about:about > doesn't count? Thank you for your explanation how we got to this. Shouldn't contents like about:logo be behind a chrome:// url (=is for resources, if I understand it right)? When I click on "(!)" on about:buildconfig there is a text that "this page is stored on my computer", while about:addons says that this is "a secure Nightly/Firefox site". The first one is not correct, because it's a build-in Firefox page and not a user/3rd party page. If I open uBlock Origins settings page, there is a "(!) moz-extension://" - Because this is 3rd party content, this seems to be right. bug 1310447 will show a broken lock for http: and mixed content pages. So "(!)" should be maybe only used for file:// and moz-extension:// (because it's user or 3rd party content). about:newtab should have the magnifier icon from the search bar (like Chromium) as long Firefox hasn't detected any protocol. Ah, this will be the case: https://mozilla.invisionapp.com/share/ZKBC94BPQ#/screens/229252027 Nice! "about:" should be the synonym of "This is a secure Firefox page". So why confusing people with incorrect description texts?^^ about:buildconfig is not like an evil.html on my desktop.

(In reply to Darkspirit from comment #3) > Should(In reply to :Gijs from comment #1) > > This was an intentional decision in bug 1051847. For many of those pages, > > that still seems right - about: and about:about and about:logo and so on > > aren't user-exposed and so we shouldn't put the chrome icon up there. For > > some of the pages you list, it would even be wrong - about:sync-log is just > > some files on disk, it's a straight-up redirect to those files and we > > shouldn't pretend they're anything else. about:newtab should be treated as a > > blank page, so that not having the chrome UI is correct, too. > > > > For this to be a useful bug you should narrow down the list and we should > > add icons only to specific pages that should have them but don't. Which of > > these pages are actually visible from any of Firefox's UI, if about:about > > doesn't count? > Thank you for your explanation how we got to this. > > Shouldn't contents like about:logo be behind a chrome:// url (=is for > resources, if I understand it right)? It isn't "behind" anything - chrome: and resource: and about: URLs are simply ways of accessing things that are stored on disk by Firefox, somewhere (often in a quasi-jar file, for which the raw URL is something like jar:file:...!/path/in/jar, which is ugly and hard to get right so we don't use it). You can access the same file using chrome://branding/content/about.png . I don't know why about:logo even exists - it dates back at least 10 years. Of course, by now removing it is going to be tedious because it's used by a bunch of tests for things completely unrelated to it being a logo, but very much related to it being an about: page with particular properties. > When I click on "(!)" It's an "i" not a "!". It's not meant to be "dangerous", and I disagree it looks like that. > on about:buildconfig there is a text that "this page > is stored on my computer", > while about:addons says that this is "a secure Nightly/Firefox site". > The first one is not correct, because it's a build-in Firefox page and not a > user/3rd party page. It *is* correct - the page is still stored on your computer. You would like it to say "Firefox", but it doesn't right now. It's also not accessible except through about:support. And maybe that about:support link should be sufficient, I don't know. But again, we need a better argument than just "you shipped this page with Firefox", and we probably need some UX feedback. Either that or we should give up and use the chrome state for all the pages except error pages (which are also about: pages...) and about:blank, and about:reader, and... and then we end up having to have a list of about: pages for which we *don't* show this UI. :-\ > If I open uBlock Origins settings page, there is a "(!) moz-extension://" - > Because this is 3rd party content, this seems to be right. > > bug 1310447 will show a broken lock for http: and mixed content pages. > > So "(!)" should be maybe only used for file:// and moz-extension:// (because > it's user or 3rd party content). > "about:" should be the synonym of "This is a secure Firefox page". So why > confusing people with incorrect description texts?^^ about:buildconfig is > not like an evil.html on my desktop. No. Nononononoo. Very much no. about:blank and about:reader and various other pages routinely contain web content that is untrusted.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/BMO/UserGuide/BugStatuses > INVALID The problem described is not a bug. > WONTFIX The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. Resolving as INVALID because of comment 1 and comment 4.