Closed Bug 244257 Opened 20 years ago Closed 7 years ago

Allow users to pick and choose file associations

Categories

(Firefox :: Settings UI, defect)

Product:
Firefox
Component:
Settings UI
Platform:
All
Windows
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
minor

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: bugzilla, Assigned: bugzilla)

References

Details

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

I've marked this bug as minor, because I believe that its non-implementation
does lose some functionality that is expected of an application in Windows.

Given that there will actually be seperate document icons for files associated
with Firefox, shouldn't there be something in options (in Windows, at least)
that allows you to select which files you do and don't want associated with
Firefox?  I recently had to manually associate .SWF with Firefox, and it was a
PITA.  Windows' automatic association doesn't work too well - to do it properly
(ie. get the Firefox icon associated with the filetype), I had to go into
Explorer's advanced settings, which I can't see the average user doing.

It's definitely worth noting that most Windows apps that do associate with files
- *especially* common types such as html, xml, etc - have this type of in-app
dialog box - it's the standard Windows way of doing things (see Paint Shop Pro,
Photoshop, Winamp, Winzip, WinRAR, WinACE, Cool Edit... plenty more).

I'm puzzled as to why Ben seems to be against this feature, because I think it
would not only be a great feature to have, but would be *expected* in an app by
most Windows users.  It's not a very good idea to grab a set of default
extensions if you're not going to give the user the option to then deselect some
of them if they would rather Firefox not auto-associate with them.  It would
also be great if users who wished Firefox to be associated with some of the less
fundamental browser filetypes (like me) were able to choose, fro within Firefox,
to associate it with them - things like .SWF files, for example, could be
included in the dialog, desclected by default.

Mozilla provides a perfect example of how to implement this, under the 'Advanced
| System' preferences section, in the Windows version.  This addition to Firefox
would apply to Windows, and I'm not sure about Mac, but probably not Linux.

Isn't the spirit of Firefox to allow users to customize their browser, because
one size doesn't fit all?  Grabbing one set of default file associations and not
letting the user modify this selection to their own desire seems to go directly
against this mantra.  I urge the developers of Firefox to reconsider adding this
feature, and at the very least, think of adding it in the future, rather than
marking it WONTFIX.  :-)

Reproducible: Couldn't Reproduce
Steps to Reproduce:
I'd love to see this implemented by a 3rd party and then taken in by Mozilla.org
as a Mozilla-maintained extension from then on.

The same GUI could probably be used in Linux, with a different back-end.
I'd like to see it implemented by default, somewhere in the options, in the
Windows version.  As I said, this kind of functionality is *standard* for
Windows applications.
I agree that allowing users to pick which types Firefox should be associated
with is expected on a Windows platform. But I'd actually like it implemented in
a way that isn't standard -- I think I've only seen one app that does it this
way: I'd like to see what app is currently associated with a filetype so I can
make an educated decision if I'd like to change it.
Hmmmm, in some cases the best that might be possible is to give the executable name.
An executable name is better than nothing. Worst case is that you have no idea
what the executable is, and then it's just asking "should Firefox handle this
type or not?"


There are several freeware apps available for downloading that can set up
whatever abitrary file associations that a user might want.  Users who want
additional association management capabilities should perhaps simply be pointed
to a site like Tucows or Download.com.   No need for Mozilla to duplicate the
effort.

One problem with building a capability like this into Mozilla is that it has the
potential to overwhelm the users.  If you show the user every existing filetype
on his machine and give her the option to change it, then you will be literally
showing a typical user several hundred items.   At the other end of the
spectrum, if you choose to show the user a limited subset, then you are pretty
much guaranteed to omit something that *somebody* is going to want to associate
with Mozilla.

However, I do agree that Mozilla absolutely should not associate itself with ANY
file types without first showing the user a list of what it proposes to do and
giving the user the option of deselecting things that do not belong on the list
- such as image files.
> One problem with building a capability like this into Mozilla is that it has the
> potential to overwhelm the users.  If you show the user every existing filetype
> on his machine and give her the option to change it, then you will be literally
> showing a typical user several hundred items.   At the other end of the
> spectrum, if you choose to show the user a limited subset, then you are pretty
> much guaranteed to omit something that *somebody* is going to want to associate
> with Mozilla.
> 
> However, I do agree that Mozilla absolutely should not associate itself with ANY
> file types without first showing the user a list of what it proposes to do and
> giving the user the option of deselecting things that do not belong on the list
> - such as image files.

Well with all due respect Rob, I simply disagree with you.

You don't need to download an app from Tucows to manually make file associations
- that can be done from Windows Explorer.  But it's *harder* to do it that way,
and annoyingly inconvenient.  Yes need for Mozilla to duplicate, and/or
supercede that effort.

Of course Mozilla should not offer the user every registered filetype on the
system to associate with. :-)  Have you seen Mozilla's 'Preferences | System'
dialog, on the Windows build?  Offering a limited subset of filetypes to be
chosen to be associated with Firefox is precisely what I'm talking about, and
it's what many, many other apps do.

Yes, there may always be users that want other lesser-known filetypes added to
that list, but I think it's pretty easy to maintain it as a sensible list of
filetypes that a large number of people might reasonably want to associate
Firefox with.  Image files, html, xml, xul, swf, and maybe a couple of others.
Reporter,
why should this bug not be marked as a duplicate of 216501 ?
Disagreeing with the WONTFIX status of a bug does not permit opening a new bug.

Ben has already said, on multiple occasions, that we won't have UI for this. 
filing a new bug is pointless and possibly insulting.  This is essentially a
duplicate of bug 216501, but rather than sit here and argue about whether it is
or not, I'm just going to mark this WONTFIX.

see here for references.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216501#c19
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216501#c78
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Mike: But *WHY NOT*?  Aren't we to be given an explanation for this?  'Too
complex' - BS.  If you're going to give a reasonable explanation for why you're
saying wontfix, fair enough, but it seems you're just stomping on this idea
seemingly without even thinking, as is Ben.  I want an explanation as to why
this should *NEVER* be implemented.  Note that I'm not saying it should be a
priority.
Jez: Please take this to the forums or mailing lists so we don't have another UI
holy war on Bugzilla. I agree that we should have this UI as at least an
extension, but the guys who write the code do get the final say unless someone
wants to make a patch, then it can really be argued for.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
even if there is a patch, it doesn't matter.  There was a patch in the original
bug.  If 90% of users won't touch it, it should be in an extension.  As long as
we have sane defaults, this shouldn't present a major issue.
*** Bug 295354 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 313293 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 313293 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 314042 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Can somebody change the summary to "(Extension) Allow users to pick and choose file associations", change "Hardware" and "OS" to "all", "severity" to "future" and reopen this bug ???

Plz also have a look at my bug 315873 about adding "extension" to the severity.
... I also think my summary of my dup is even better:
(Extension) prefs in options to associate app with file-extensions ;-)))
b.m.o is not for tracking outside extension projects.  If we do at some point host an official extension project setup then we would have a separate product hierarchy for those extensions.
sorry for bugspam, long-overdue mass reassign of ancient QA contact bugs,
filter on "beltznerLovesGoats" to get rid of this mass change
QA Contact: mconnor → preferences
QA Contact: Tobias.Besemer
Still a problem for normal Windows users to associate file extensions like html, htm, xpi,...
Guess there should be also a other bug to it.
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
OS: Windows XP → Windows
Hardware: x86 → All
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
Please do not reopen 12 year old bugs. If there's new info to revisit such an old bug/decision, file a new bug.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago → 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.