566087 - Image documents shouldn't reveal an HTML structure when inspecting

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(DevTools :: Inspector, defect, P3)

Description

[(no longer active)]

Is this expected?

http://grab.by/4o0F

Comment 1

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

Why INVALID? Seems like we should disable the inspect command for these documents, no?

Comment 2

[Rob Campbell [:rc] (:robcee)]

why? Didn't seem like a bug to me. The tree is showing what the browser's created to display the image document. The image itself is correctly highlighted (though the subject matter made that a little confusing because it's highlighting over an image of the highlighter).

If you think this is a bug we can reopen it.

Comment 3

[:Gavin Sharp [email: [e-mail]]]

meh!

Comment 4

[(no longer active)]

Well, the problem here is that almost nobody expects there to be an HTML document behind images, etc.  We know this, and it's natural for us, because we're developing the browser, but it might be totally unexpected for other people.

I suggest to disable Inspect for audio/video/image documents, but I don't hold that position strongly enough to urge me to reopen this bug!  :-)

Comment 5

[Rob Campbell [:rc] (:robcee)]

I might be starting to convince myself otherwise. Testing a .png document (your screencap, minus the tinygrab stuff), pressing cmd-a to select the page and then right clicking to view the selection source, the context menu option is disabled. So we have at least one other place in the browser where we're doing this kind of check to prevent people from seeing under the covers.

I guess for consistency's sake, we might want to do that here as well. Though Gavin's "meh!" is a strong argument against.

Comment 6

[Kevin Dangoor]

filter on PEGASUS

Comment 7

[Tim Nguyen :ntim]

Not sure we should fix this... If we fix this, we need to fix other similar cases as well like videos. I don't think it's worth fixing, especially since inspecting images is not a common use case.
Patrick, what do you think?

Comment 8

[Patrick Brosset <:pbro>]

I personally think we should not fix this.
I value the fact that the inspector really shows what's in the page. And that it shows people what the browser actually generated to display the image.
For instance on https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1528/26097700865_5d8e05b0db_z.jpg I can use the inspector to know why the background is a grainy dark gray, and how is the image centered and resized when I resize the browser window.
Why would we want to hide this at all? If people use this page to copy/save the image, then they're most probably not going to open the inspector anyway and be bothered by it.