Closed
Bug 192471
Opened 22 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
local file listings need improvement
Categories
(Core :: Networking: File, enhancement)
Core
Networking: File
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
EXPIRED
People
(Reporter: calvin, Assigned: dougt)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
The display for directory listings is lacking very much. Mozilla has a powerful
GUI and that should be exploited to its fullest. Displaying of a directory
listing should be a multi-column, sortable display. Columns should exist for
filename, size, perhaps type, dates, etc. Also, directories should (perhaps
optionally?) be seperated from the files, by giving them ordering preference
over files.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
Calvin: You mean something like Edit > Preferences > Debug > Networking >
"Directory listing format: XUL (tree-based)"?
Comment 3•22 years ago
|
||
Not file handling.
Assignee: law → dougt
Component: File Handling → Networking: File
QA Contact: petersen → benc
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
I have a few comments then in reply:
Why is this option in Debug->Networking?
Why does it not apply to local directory listings?
What about the ordering of directories and files? (Directories should appear
above files)
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
To answer your first q: I think they're still working on it, and some ppl prefer
the current way of displaying directories.
Dunno bout the other 2 questions.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
These days a professional quality browser is expected to handle file management,
as well as show web sites. That is the context I'm filing this bug report, to
clear up my viewpoint. There doesn't seem to even be an option for local
directory listings as XUL trees. That should be an option, with trees as
default. And then a sidebar tab should be created to list directory structure,
but thats another thing for another time.
please change the summary so is describes one or two of the major changes you
would like.
the default html view was generally better liked, and works better than the
XUL/tree style, which has most of the features you want. XUL used to be the
default, but we switched somwhere after Mozilla 1.0, as I recall.
Please switch to XUL, and describe what you improvements you think are needed.
If other browsers besides IE have file management features, that would be good
to know. I don't think the fact IE has file management is necessarily a good
reason for us to try to gain feature parity in that area.
Reporter | ||
Comment 8•22 years ago
|
||
I strongly believe that local file listings should be XUL, it would make more
sense for most users. Also, the directories need priority over files in
ordering, so that they appear at the top of a listing.
Summary: file listing display is very badly designed → local file listings need improvement
Comment 9•22 years ago
|
||
I would prefer it to look like it has looked at least since NS4, I prefer the
HTML version. the xul version was ugly as well as buggy.
Reporter | ||
Comment 10•22 years ago
|
||
Can anyone give any reasons to use the HTML view? There are several good reasons
for using the XUL file listing, such as being about to order the files in
various manners and thus find particular items faster.
Comment 11•22 years ago
|
||
> Can anyone give any reasons to use the HTML view?
1) It's not buggy (drag/drop from it works, clicking on things works, etc)
2) It acts like users expect it to (middle-click, single-click, modifier-click,
selection, etc all work as expected).
Those are the primary reasons. If someone were to fix the XUL view to not be
totally broken, it could be considered a viable option againa.
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•22 years ago
|
||
Well, this bug report is about improving the file listing, so that includes
improving anything wrong with the XUL layout. but how can the XUL layout be
tested and improved when it isnt even an option? Three things need to happen:
1) XUL directory listing for local filesystems needs to be an option
2) the XUL listing needs improved
3) the XUL listing needs to be default
On a side note, I've found a related bug where local directory listings are in
XUL (which I like, but its wrong since its not suppost to be supported). Will be
posted seperate bug if not already present.
Comment 13•22 years ago
|
||
Actually, item #0 on that list is:
0) Someone needs to be found who has time to work on the XUL listing.
Bradley worked on it for a while, but he has no time to do that now. He may
also be able to summarize the technical issues that need resolution better....
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•22 years ago
|
||
well, i say itd be 1.5, cause first we need to see it to work on it. if thats
done, i will find someone to improve it or do it myself even if it means
teaching myself XUL.
Comment 15•22 years ago
|
||
You can already enable it if you want to work on it. The pref still works
there's just no UI for it.
Comment 16•19 years ago
|
||
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".
This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.
While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.
If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
Comment 17•19 years ago
|
||
This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → EXPIRED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•