Sorry Were Having Trouble Opening This Item This Could Be Temporary but if You See It Again You

In that location are already means to force browsers to download using HTTP headers. The author says this is a "server-side solutions to front end-cease problem", okay.

Which is funny, because I admittedly loathe opening in the browser, I prefer saving it.

"Before the Chrome salvage button"? What does that fifty-fifty mean? Half the time I see people praising Chrome it's because of something thoroughly mundane, like an address bar, or saving files, or links. Did you guys browse the web using potatoes before you got Chrome, or what?

It means Chrome comes with a built-in pdf reader that, when you lot decide to save the file you're looking at, does non re-download information technology. This is significant when dealing with large files, and not a feature present in all competing products.

It seems kind of silly that certain browsers download it again. Isn't it stored as temp information somewhere? They should only have to rename it.

Netscape (IIRC) would do some other GET (or Postal service!?) when doing a view-source, which NEVER EVER made sense to anyone I would demonstrate it it. I want to run across the source of the page that's currently rendered, not the source of another Post asking. That behaviour thankfully seems non to exist nowadays in any modern browsers.

I may exist misremembering, just didn't NN also re-GET on RESIZE EVENTS? I'm sure there was a very clever reason for doing so, just information technology sure did piss me off at the time.

I concur that the Acrobat plugin was a pain (and I always made sure to disable it in Firefox), just I admittedly love the Firefox in-browser PDF viewer. Information technology doesn't lock up the PC while loading, and it has a convenient download button that doesn't seem to redownload the PDF when clicked (much like saving an already loaded image).

Information technology might have something to do with my PC (i7 x220) but I cannot stand the Firefox viewer for annihilation but plain text. I find information technology very lacking in terms of operation compared to a native pdf viewer. Everytime a somewhat complex pdf opens upwards (by and large formulas, few images), the fan begins to rev upwardly significantly..

Firefox's reader is an improvement over Adobe's, sure, only that's like beating snail in a foot race. Get Firefox, y'all testify'em Chrome! It's still not SumatraPDF, it'south non Evince. Saving the file and having it auto-open up these programs takes less time and then waiting for the browsers PDF readers to kick in. Of course it could be better, but bluntly, I'd rather things be more than unix'y, not less.

A major trouble with saving all pdf files to be opened in a separate program is having to delete the temporary files afterwards. That's non very unix-y.

> having to delete the temporary files afterwards

It's funny how many Windows users seem to think the PDF format is intrinsically slow, and all because of Acrobat Reader. Safari on Bone X renders a PDF simply as chop-chop as any other webpage, and e'er has.

I imagine if you were to test that so the PDF rendering would really be significantly faster than HTML, since Bone 10's rendering is all PostScript under the covers.

On Windows I've notwithstanding to see any PDF viewer that's faster or better than Sumatra. All the in-browser ones are a bit tedious and defective in features.

I was kidding, jeez. I'thou a big fan of SumatraPDF and use it everywhere I can.

I've been using Sumatra for a long fourth dimension, just information technology's been supplanted past Firefox in most cases recently. Sumatra is great and lightweight though, and it uses a robust and open source rendering and parsing engine.

If Chrome didn't offer any mode to 'save equally' a PDF that it was displaying (really?!?), that's clearly Chrome's problem.

Unless it comes from one of a number of periodical or research sites, where at to the lowest degree one of those options volition no longer work.

That's cause yous aren't actually looking at a PDF, most likely. If you are really looking at a PDF in Chrome'southward renderer you will definitely be able to salvage it.

I'd besides rather download and open in Sumatra but this is a handy feature I wasn't aware of. Opening the link in a new tab will non force the download (Chrome) different changing headers and masquerading the file every bit an application.

I would love to have an option in the right click menu to IGNORE the HTTP headers. For example, sometimes at that place is a link to an epitome similar a jpg or a png that then forces you to download information technology. It REFUSES to ever return it in your browser. A correct click option to ignore all MIME types and show it based on extention or magic bytes in the file would be AWESOME. Why do no browsers have that?

Content-Disposition attachement is one of the hardest things to implement when y'all have UTF-8 filenames. Y'all have to browser sniff, and fifty-fifty then I have haven't found a good solution.

See [1] for a very comprehensive and up-to-appointment tabular array of browser support for various encoding schemes. Come across [2] for browser-specific hacks.

Thanks. These days it looks like a reasonable solution is to just call the file "download.ext" for anything older than IE9.

In my feel, IE6-eight can handle UTF-eight filenames if (1) the extension is alphanumeric; (2) y'all pct-encode the rest of the filename, making sure that whitespace is encoded as "%20" rather than "+"; and (3) you put the whole affair between double quotes. Use RFC2231 for all other browsers, although slightly older versions of Chrome and Safari might cause trouble from fourth dimension to time.

That's a pretty good idea -- possibly a "prompt" attribute instead of a "download" attribute.

Nice, that JS is a great idea, thanks.

The security implication in this instance is non directly related to content-disposition. It could just as well be implemented using the download attribute. The gist of the attack is that information technology was possible to inject arbitrary javascript into an html file that was downloaded. After opening the file locally, the usual browser protections do non apply since information technology's a local file and the javascript can use this to escalate its privileges.

Good indicate, simply such a prompt would exist similarly annoying (i.e. annoying to a similar number of users). The way I've done this in the past has been to provide 2 links, one of which triggered the inclusion of HTTP headers at the server, to trigger the Save dialo). Assuming the download attribute is supported, information technology'due south even easier:

> What we _really_ need, that we _don't_ have a way to practise right now -- is betoken the browser to _prompt_ the user as to whether it should be saved or displayed in-browser

Correct, some browsers do, some don't. (I used to exist able to _get_ Firefox to, with the right config, just stopped being abel to effigy out how, and so switched to chrome where i haven't figured out how either).

>Merely what we need is a standard cross-browser way to request this beliefs (prompt for download vs show), that past default standards-compliant browsers will comply with (I'll permit for users over-riding this default behavior with configuration, if the browser wants to back up that, sure).

I really would love if Dolphin Browser and Opera Mini would open PDF files in browser. Downloading files for viewing and opening PDF reader really isn't nice choice, when you but want to have a quick expect what the file is actually about.

Mobile Chrome often gets this correct. For many file types it will enquire what you desire to do if y'all haven't set up a default action. Merely never set a default and information technology always asks.

Isn't that exactly what browsers ask y'all when y'all click in "Relieve as"? Ok, it'due south not "display in browser", information technology'south simply "brandish" (or "open"), but what's the departure?

Generally the "open" choice opens in another app, not the browser. Including for formats the browser actually displays better.

Agreed. Depending on context (of the content and myself!), sometimes I'll want to save and sometimes not.

I moved to Chrome just to be able to come across PDFs in browser. Lots of websites have info that way (restaurants are the worst) and I don't want to become it saved on my reckoner just to have to delete it!

The option approach with the power to gear up a default is the best arroyo. And so depending on the default, the right click will show the non-default option.

I similar the current method in Safari that opens PDFs in browser by default, but if I wast to save the PDF to disk, I just Option-click.

> when I want to await at a PDF in browser

> does that ever happen?

I set my default download location to /tmp, which on my OS is automatically cleaned up. If I desire to keep something I movement it to my dwelling directory after looking at it. Otherwise, I can just forget almost it.

As long as people (generally academia and enquiry orgs) continue to publish their content exclusively in PDF form, and so there volition be a demand to look at that content in a web browser.

To be fair, there are a number of advantages to having content in PDF's rather than HTML. For case,

PDF preserves layout whereas html doesn't (generally, although it can preserve layout somewhat if you specify one font, fix font sizes, and fix all dimensions), but that's a negative for PDFs.

I think you're missing a key part of citing (at least for me), paraphrasing. When discussing sentiment or similar without quoting, you wouldn't know what to search for. Information technology makes sense to requite a page number to review and get more information on the source, without that you wouldn't know where to look. Yous'd have to read the entire source.

If you're paraphrasing, and then you could straight-quote a critical function of the text so that a reader knows what to search for.

No, I totally agree with you on all those points –– and they definitely highlight the value of PDF every bit a format.

>> when I want to wait at a PDF in browser > does that ever happen?

>> when I desire to wait at a PDF in browser > does that ever happen? I do this all the time. I hate downloading crap that I'm probably just going to glance at one time so discard.

OK yep I understand ameliorate now. I never realized that other browsers apparently don't offering the "open with default application" option in the download dialog, like Opera does.

Default application, yes. A browser tab, no. When I just desire to look at an paradigm, firefox is largely preferable to gimp. When I have a bunch of pdfs, firefox tabs are easier to manage than evince windows.

One small nitpick: please please don't make all your files download with a single filename.

Could, but putting information technology at the stop of the document would seem pretty normal given what a lot of users get when downloading stuff. I think url shortners and tublr paradigm urls probably paved the way.

yeah, simply sorting files past date added is usually footling, and then I'd rather have the selection of group all of the invoices together. But I completely agree that people should proper name these files to brand sorting easier and more useful.

Ah, but date added is non always equal to the date of the invoice. Ex: download 2013-01-01-invoice.pdf today (2013-04-23).

> Yes this is a little nicer, just please exist _even_ nicer and put other relevant info in the filename[...]

I could not agree more. Why, why, WHY don't people set metadata fields for PDFs (and other documents, but especially pdfs) and why don't websites use/crave that metadata? Nosotros could be running a semantic web right now and be a year or two alee of where we are if people would really think more one step ahead.

that's definetly a very good idea. Customize your filenames with a relevant proper name , adding the date is a very good practice, and why not the user/customer proper name too ( for invoices,etc ... ).

For anybody lament that they don't want to be forced to download--simply take two buttons:

Problem is that if the browser doesn't back up viewing of the file, and so both links will cause a download, which tin exist confusing to the user. I remember we need a way to see if a MIME type of a file is supported by the browser (including its plugins.)

Why are both unacceptable? Server enforcing downloading/viewing measn the user couldn't override its choice, but providing both links avoids that issue.

If the browser presented both choices, it wouldn't be able to distinguish past state of affairs, so either it would hide downloading inappropriately, or it would present it inappropriately.

The browser is enforcing that, unless y'all tell it non to, like y'all ever can with a browser.

I Detest sites that strength downloading! I oft have a 50+ MBit/sec connection and desire to exist able to choose between having a PDF (e.thou. a invoice - all I need is the corporeality and the bank data) render in the browser and so I tin discard information technology afterwards using (here: wiring the money) and non having to practise:

I don't know what OS you lot are using, but on linux, I salve all of those files to /dev/shm. Since this parks it in shared memory, one time I restart my reckoner at some point, they will be gone. The same can be done by using a tmpfs every bit your default download destination and a script that cleares any file older than x days etc. I basically use 2 download folders: ~/Dowloads/* and /dev/shm/; the first is being used for Downloads I'd like to continue, the latter for temporary files.

Unless your distribution of choice implements /tmp equally tmpfs, which iirc Fedora does! ;) But yes, /tmp works equally well!

Browsers (or site owners) could probably practice a better job of differentiating links with download attributes. Maybe on mouse over show a little download cursor or something.

In the "old times" Firefox asked me whether I wanted to download and and then open, download into temp and then open up, or download into a to-be-selected folder; with an addon I could force browse render as an option, too.

Firefox nevertheless does exactly what y'all ask for exactly the same mode it did in the "onetime times".

To show an icon on hover over a link on the browser side it would require browsers to make an HTTP Caput request for each link to see if it has the "Content-Disposition: Attachment" header. That would add a lot of overhead to the folio load, and so I don't call up it would be added to any browser.

Note I said in case the download attribute is set on the link, in which case, no, it would not require whatever request, it just follows the instructions fix in the HTML.

Don't other browsers have a "temporary downloads" folder? For when you select "open up this file with (...)" in the download dialog? Opera does.

But rarely, applications do this. The only notable exceptions is Winrar temp-extractions and some installers. Most other products merely permit their stuff rot in TEMP hell.

Actually there are two TEMPs, ane Local Settings and one Roaming Settings TEMP. Merely unlike nearly linuxes, Windows doesn't clean them, and some applications even fuck up when you delete their temp-stuff.

Yes, exactly this extension I talk about in another reply - but I don't use Firefox whatever more because it creates disk load and swaps heavily on a 5400rpm deejay, and it locks up while waiting for deejay i/o every x seconds (every tab switch, in essence). Chrome's unmarried-process-per-folio model is ameliorate, because the OS can practice proper swapping.

Interesting in that I've seen the verbal reverse: Chrome hits the deejay a lot harder, particularly on startup, compared to Firefox.

This is true, the cold startup takes longer in Chrome than in FF. Only if you're brusque on RAM (I commonly hit 2-3GB usage without a browser running) and the OS starts swapping when you open tabs (I have ~30-xl open regularly), then the difference appears.

1) I don't think your use case / preference is that mutual. I'd venture that most of the fourth dimension a download is preferable; I know that's the case for me.

I'm well-nigh never on a l+ MBit/sec connection, which brings up another bespeak. When on a tedious, information-capped connection, such equally the i I'm on right at present, I want to know the size of the file I'm downloading. That lets me decide if it's actually worth spending my precious bandwidth on. If not, I cancel the download. When letting the browser display the file there's no (easy) way of finding out the file size.

From the Firefox normal behaviour, I imagine it would enquire you whether you lot wish to open the file in the Os registered handler or save it. If you tell it to utilise an external program, FF downloads to temp, not to the Downloads directory.

The problem is that FF does non read the OS list of programs (or can call the "Use OS selection for program/Open With"), but has "its own source" - on Linux, this sucks, because if I want to specify an unknown plan, it's most probable in /usr/bin, which has thousands of files and so blocks the disk for a huge time while reading the file list.

Note that the "download" attribute is extremely useful when the href is a data or blob URI [1]. This allows you lot to construct the file that the user is going to go far Javascript, rather than server-side. For example, if you lot wanted to write an image-editing spider web app and didn't want to circular-trip to the server to let them to download a copy.

Yeah, this is useful. You can generate the URI in a click handler besides, so if yous need to do some final minute assembly information technology withal seems to piece of work like a regular download link.

> There are or class other means of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible.

> You, serving the file, presumably have an idea what you want the user to do with the file. The .html page you propose editing is server side. The file existence served is server side. The server configuration is server side.

On the contrary, our solution as implemented on our CDN uses a query string parameter numbered 1 - viii to select one of those sets which are then prepare past the server in the response. So you can choose it on the fly for any file.

Deplorable, I was replying about different URLs, you're focused on the caching question. Yes, well-nigh browsers would retrieve over again. That's the price you pay for having the same file be able to be viewed or able to force a download.

Information technology's good to run into such a comprehensive list, only these only assistance me if I want to configure download vs view on a per-filetype basis?

I must admit my cognition of content headers is lacking. Thanks for sharing your list.

What's with Chrome adding extensions to the filename? Is this behaviour specific to Chrome on Windows or standard beyond all platforms?

The problem is that Windows desktop market share is overwhelming and as a Website writer, you take to think in Windows user terms!

Firefox quirk

There'southward something of a disharmonize between "The download attribute is supported in Chrome 14+ and Firefox 20+" and "but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should exist avoided whenever possible."

How would a web designer exist able to cull my intention prematurely without a crystal ball?

Right click and salve-equally might be abrasive but it'due south also a critical piece of our tinkering economy. I don't want to use a client that prohibits me from downloading the web unless it's specified equally "permissible" past the author. This is a step in that management.

Settle downwards, no one'south taking your right-click away. The author is just conveying that this is a bad default to force on users for the elementary human action of downloading.

This appears to exist trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that is more than problematic than the trouble it attempts to solve.

"There are or class other means of forcing file downloads, such equally adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I remember server-side solutions to front-finish issues should be avoided whenever possible."

I'm non entirely certain that I've grasped all of what you're saying here, just the download attribute is in the WHATWG HTML specification, and can hardly be considered OP himself trying to reinvent the wheel.

The PDF instance is no problem with the builtin PDF back up in Chrome and Firefox. Or if you similar the Adobe stuff, just disable the plugin and y'all'll automatically get the download and then a prompt to launch Acrobat Reader.

QWERTY keyboards demand to become away, but they are design patterns that people are used to.

> Also, as far equally I'm aware this issue is just actually with PDF files, as nigh every other MIME extension is not supported by a browser.

off-topic, but got to say information technology:

I call back mayhap there is an increasing tendency to pattern one UI for every platform (touch screen tablets, desktops etc.) and to favour consistency across platforms rather than proper integration within each platform. So if right-click is difficult to emulate on a impact screen, and so often the desktop version of a program available for touch-screen devices won't make good apply of right-click either.

and again... no IE.

Take a lesson from the user backlash that happens every time a browser removes a feature: Don't do that. The all-time you can practise is encourage developers to apply an alternative. The worst you can practice is to strength it on people who don't share your betoken of view.

He isn't saying that browsers should remove the "Save as..."-characteristic. Yet, he is suggesting that browsers and websites should implement the download-attribute, which he believes will make the need for "Salve equally..." go away in those cases.

Further: the article is about browsers adding a feature for HTML5 developers that formerly required tinkering with HTTP headers on the server-side.

Designers who think their site should behave differently from web standards need to get away. This is completely inappropriate for typical sites. It's only appropriate for web apps that really do deal with files.

Sure fine, as long as there's a "launch handler anyway" context menu choice. I don't care what people recollect they need to say equally long as I have a way of doing the things I want to exercise anyway.

I don't hold with the last point, "In that location are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I call back server-side solutions to front-terminate problems should be avoided whenever possible."

I similar this except for the final part where he mentions that he doesn't like server-side solutions to front-end issues. The way I see information technology, this is a server-side problem that only shows up on the front cease. If we're talking about sending headers that tell the client to download something then that should exist coming from the server. Now, information technology's awesomely convenient that HTML5 lets us practise this but still, I see it every bit something that withal "belongs" on the server side. Just my take on that last role.

Yuck, browser specific things? What about the browsers y'all didn't mention? I would prefer there to exist i standard mode, not complicated tricks to be fix upwards for each browser.

Doesn't this break the XHTML serialization?

I was hoping that at least IE eight would support a customer side prepare for this, merely hey who would always assume that IE would support something.

"Correct click and salve equally" is the last affair to go away imo.

> Firefox quirk - When specifying a value for the attribute, Firefox will not automatically give the file the correct file extension like Chrome does.

If the files were beingness served with a text/plain MIME blazon, it's sensible beliefs for Chrome to add together .txt, and it's the site's error for sending the wrong type info.

What's really annoying to me is when links showtime downloading instead of opening the file in the browser. Is in that location whatsoever way to force Chrome to open a certain link, the way you tin can strength it to download via "save as"?

"Correct click" is meaningless to Mac laptops and every mobile device. For that reason solitary, I dislike using the text "Right click to save."

I'm on a Mac laptop and an Android phone and it's very meaningful to me. I think it'due south fairly well understood that "right-click" ways "context menu". On the Mac I access the context carte du jour by two-finger clicking or by holding ctrl when I click. On my Android mobile device I tap and hold.

Let'due south say that gets adopted everywhere. For people like me who are used to doing RC/SA, you'll accept to put a "No Demand To RC/SA" prompt. You can't win.

No, no it doesn't. It's taken this long to ingrain in every single calculator users brain how to do this. To change it at present would be a nightmare.

I think nosotros decided the whole "open in a new window" thing is annoying? Why non but leave the decision to the users to decide?

I certainly do -- I virtually ever want to change the file name to something that makes sense at my stop. I don't often care what makes sense at the creator's end; I desire to observe the file quickly when I demand it.

I do! Why?

I do. I salve files in the right place as soon as they are downloaded: that way you never have a messy Downloads folder or a crowded desktop.

Well, when all browsers back up the HTML 5 download features then maybe the 'Correct click and salvage equally' tin go away. Until then it stays.

McGhee Expont

Sorry Were Having Trouble Opening This Item This Could Be Temporary but if You See It Again You

Post a Comment for "Sorry Were Having Trouble Opening This Item This Could Be Temporary but if You See It Again You"