-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 244
Describe changes to element hiding rules in CoreLibs 1.18 #692
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Helen <[email protected]>
For example: | ||
|
||
```adblock | ||
example.org##body { background-color: green; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest mentioning remove rules here, such as example.com##h1 { remove: true; }
.
Another important point is that in the free version, only remove rules work — as far as I understand, other types of CSS injections (like coloring) are part of the premium ABP subscription.
ABP refers to these rules collectively as “Inline CSS” rules btw.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, if that's the case, can we limit the support to remove: true
and just not support their premium functionality? It makes little sense since the rules for that are a part of their premium bundle and it cannot be shared&used in other ad blockers.
|
||
```adblock | ||
example.org#@#body | ||
example.org#@#body { background-color: green; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Basically, both options work in ABP, but what’s important is that ABP only checks the selector during allowlisting, while ADG checks the entire rule. We’ll probably need to resolve this inconsistency at some point.
cc @ameshkov
For example: | ||
|
||
```adblock | ||
example.org##body { background-color: green; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, if that's the case, can we limit the support to remove: true
and just not support their premium functionality? It makes little sense since the rules for that are a part of their premium bundle and it cannot be shared&used in other ad blockers.
``` | ||
|
||
This usage is discouraged in favor of using [CSS rules](#cosmetic-css-rules) and is only supported for compatibility with filter lists written for Adblock Plus. | ||
|
||
Element hiding exceptions (`#@#`) can match such a rule both by its selector part and by the full rule text. | ||
For example, the rule `example.org##body { background-color: green; }` can be disabled by any of the following exception rules: | ||
Element hiding exceptions (`#@#`) are matched by the selector part only, ignoring the declarations block part. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Element hiding exceptions (`#@#`) are matched by the selector part only, ignoring the declarations block part. | |
Element hiding exceptions (`#@#`) are matched by the selector part only, ignoring the declaration part. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
{ remove: true; }
is the declarations block, I'm refering to the part of the rule that is the declarations block :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see
ignore my suggestion then :)
Subj.