realized that bug 136986 is invalid. the issue here is that the "image as url" context menu has not been implemented. what we get now is the menu for "inline image", when the pointer is over the image, and the menu for the regular content area when pointer is not over the image. the spec'd context menu is at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/ui/communicator/framework/contextmenus/#Anchor-7191 and would include the following: Back Forward Reload Stop [sep] Copy Image (see bug 135300) Copy Image Location Bookmark This Page [sep] Save Image Send Image Send to Buddy (commercial-only rfe) Set as Wallpaper (win32-only for the time being) [sep] Image Properties

tentatively nominating (unsure about the time available, etc)...

Per the Nav triage team marking nsbeta1+ [adt2 rtm]

What *is* an Image as URL? As opposed to an Image as Link? The only think I can think of is that it's the context menu for an image when you just load the image, e.g. http://wwww.webaddress.com/foo.gif. If so, I can't really understand how this could be critical for rtm, but...

yep, the context menu for "image as url" is for when something like http://mozilla.org/images/mozilla-banner.gif is loaded for the page's url.

I agree with Blake, why is this critical? removing plus for retriage.

nsbeta1- per Nav triage team.

nominating for buffy.

currently ! view image block images from this server copy image location - save image as send image set as wallpaper - ? bookmark this page ! save page as ! send page copy select all - properties The three items i've marked with ! are really inappropriate. The item I marked with ? is questionable. This patch removes all four. I'll take a review from xpfe specifying what to do with ? (it's easy to just not commit that line).

I'd say keep "bookmark this page", you're right on the other three though. Fix those two logic errors I pointed out on #mozilla and sr=jag

Comment on attachment 104049 [details] [diff] [review] same as before but without a logic glitch sr=jag

Comment on attachment 104049 [details] [diff] [review] same as before but without a logic glitch Shouldn't you call |isImage| something more distinct from |onImage| so people don't confuse them? How about |onImageDoc|?

This can wait until 1.3 opens (real soon now). It's not a recent regression, major crash or near-zero risk fix so please hold off on landing until 1.3a opens. Thanks.

nsbeta1- per the nav triage team.

Comment on attachment 104049 [details] [diff] [review] same as before but without a logic glitch I agree with dbaron. This will work even if you are right clicking on the page outside of the image in the image doc, right? So 'isImage' may not be entirely accurate. r=caillon if you use onImageDoc

retargeting

To timeless to maybe check in the patch, seeing as it has reviews....

http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsview2.cgi?diff_mode=context&whitespace_mode=show&file=nsContextMenu.js&branch=1.125&root=/cvsroot&subdir=mozilla/suite/common&command=DIFF_FRAMESET&rev1=1.84&rev2=1.85 - fixed a bit over five years ago.