User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1 StumbleUpon/1.9993 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050225 Firefox/1.0.1 StumbleUpon/1.9993 When right-clicking a link which has a background image, the "view background image" menu item is missing. Attaching a test-case. The first element has the menu item, the second doesn't, even though they have the same background image. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:

Using Mozilla 1.8b1, "view background image" is also missing.

bug 147781 and bug 167959 were wontfix:ed for the suite. Apparantly the option was there once, but removed on purpose, see bug 167959, comment 3

Well, looking at the comments linked to, there is: 1) no mention of any reason why the option should be missing 2) no mention of anyone's preference toward a menu with the option missing 3) clear indication that several users want the option 3) clear indication that most people who commented agreed to add the option 4) a person in charge who makes rude dismissive remarks ("wontfix. come on.") Given these circumstances, I firmly believe that the option should be added.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-ZA; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050612 Firefox/1.0+ I have had the same problem (when setting a background-image for element a; no 'view background image' option in context menu) I really don't understand the logic behind removing this on purpose. How can you say it makes the context menu messy; its only one option that is there on other elements anyway.

OK, since there's a consensus that the menu needs to be reverted back. What should we do? Summit a patch? or is someone with CVS access going to revert the menu directly? Mozilla also needs some procedure to decide what parts needs to be changed in the User Interface so this problem doesn't happen again.

A start would be to attach a patch and then ask for review. You will then find out if it will be accepted or not

Don't know if this is worth making a new report for so I'll mention it here: this is also a problem for images themselves. An image with a background-image won't have the 'View background image' context menu item either. Try it: <img src="https://www.mozilla.org/images/header_logo.gif" alt="Image with a background-image" style="background:url(https://www.mozilla.org/images/header_bl.png) no-repeat top left;" />

This happens because we don't allow to show the background image entry when being over a link: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/49d7fee2e9b4/browser/base/content/nsContextMenu.js#l197 I had several situations when I would have been glad to see that working. Any reason why this is disabled?

Wow, this has been open since *2005*. Why no motion on this??

(In reply to comment #10) > This happens because we don't allow to show the background image entry when > being over a link: > > http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/annotate/49d7fee2e9b4/browser/base/content/nsContextMenu.js#l197 CC'ing Dao and Justin, who could hopefully know what is wrong.

I'd probably WONTFIX this bug... I think the intention here is that when you're right clicking on a link, the context menu should be focused on link-specific actions. Otherwise you deluge the use with a giant list of context menu items.

That may be the case for links, but as I pointed out this also happens with unlinked images.

(In reply to comment #14) > I'd probably WONTFIX this bug... > > I think the intention here is that when you're right clicking on a link, the > context menu should be focused on link-specific actions. Otherwise you deluge > the use with a giant list of context menu items. I agree for the case of text-only links but disagree for the case of links with background images. A link with a background image is just that - a link, and a background image. Therefore it seems reasonable to provide both link-specific and background image-specific actions in the context menu, especially, at the very least, such a basic action as "view background image". Also, the number of additional background image-specific actions may not be large enough to constitute a "giant list".

(In reply to Chris Wagner from comment #12) > Wow, this has been open since *2005*. Why no motion on this?? 13 is the charm?