User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr-FR; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr-FR; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0 If you design bindings and name them with the .xbl extension, they will not load if .xbl files are associated to an editor in Folders Options. Nothing shows up where the binding should be, and nothing appears in the DOM. Please note that if you name them with the .xml extension, it will work even if .xml files are associated to an editor. This behavior has been checked on versions XP and NT of Windows, and on FireFox releases 0.8, 0.9.3, 1PR and 1.0 Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Design a xul file that refers to a .xbl binding 2. Associate the .xbl extension to your favorite editor (xmlspy, vim, whatever...) 3. Load the xul file on Fire Fox : the binding content does not appear. Actual Results: The binding content does not appear in the browser, nor does it in the DOM explorator. Expected Results: The binding content should appear. If you remove the window association with .xbl files, it works again. If you leave it but rename your binding file .xml (and its reference too, of course), it works too.

Is the problem the association, or that you changed the MIME type for .xbl files from text/xml to something? We hardcode .xml as an XML file, but we only do that for .xbl if the OS doesn't override the extension's meaning.

(In reply to comment #1) > Is the problem the association, or that you changed the MIME type for .xbl files > from text/xml to something? We hardcode .xml as an XML file, but we only do > that for .xbl if the OS doesn't override the extension's meaning. The problem is the association made by Windows when you chose an application to double-click-open a file and leave the check box checked so that next time it won't ask you which application should be used. I didn't fiddle with the mime types used by the browser...

> I didn't fiddle with the mime types used by the browser... Yes, but the browser asks the OS what MIME type ".xbl" is. Did changing the association change what the OS reports?

> Did changing the > association change what the OS reports? I'm not familliar with how Windows handles associations, but from what I've read here and there, it seems like it is actually using Mime Types... So this must be the cause of the problem I had... Now, is it legitimate to ask for a modification so that .xbl (and, for that matter, .xul) files are not subject to the OS call, just like for .xml files ? The easy work around is to name bindings with the .xml extension, and it probably only concerns Windows. It's up to you ! Thanks for all the explanation anyway !

.xul is already handled like .xml. Doing it for .xbl is dangerous, because there may be other file types out there using the .xbl extension. This is why the XBL in the mozilla source tree all uses .xml -- that way it won't conflict with other things.

Hello: I suspect I'm going to demonstrate just how computer illiterate the flood of new Firefox users is likely to be. I didn't change any settings regarding extension associations, I just decided to try a new skin for Firefox. When I quit Firefox after selecting the skin and tried to restart the program, I got this "no binding for XBL" error and the program wouldn't load. I wasn't sure what to do so I uninstalled the program and re-installed it to no avail. I've now tried uninstalling and installing several of the nightly latest versions and nothing helps. I know there's something called a registry for Windows, but I didn't want to monkey around in there. I've also seen in Windows Explorer where you can change file associations. I don't know if this is what has been referred to already in this post. As for now, I've simply gone back to Netscape.

> When I quit Firefox after selecting the skin and tried to restart the program, > I got this "no binding for XBL" error That sounds like a separate issue, unrelated to this bug.... Please file a separate bug on it, including information like which theme you were installing.

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/

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.