Supported rules

[Ares2]

Sorry if I've overlooked something obvious (Documentation , FAQ etc), I admit that I have no idea at all, the only thing I saw was blog/list-of-adblock-plus-chrome-issues which didn't give me clear answer.

I'm wondering what types of rules are supported by ABP for Chrome?

Background: http://forums.lanik.us/viewtopic.php?t=8014

1. What filter/exception rules options are supported (even if just hiding as mentioned in the known issues)? What happens with a rule that specifies one that isn't supported? Are exception rules even working at all? Specifically, what's wrong with

Code: Select all

@@||impde.tradedoubler.com/imp?type(img)$image,domain=sms-box.de|smsgott.de

2. Similar what about hiding rules?

3. Which of the above limitations will most likely not be fixed in the near future? (So we can discuss if we should modify EasyList instead of waiting for a fix)

[Wladimir Palant]

1. Exception rules are ignored for blocking . The rules that currently only hide will consider exceptions properly however.
2. Nothing special here AFAIK (other than the "style" attribute - it isn't rewritten in Chrome, same as Firefox 4). There is an exception for Gmail however, only domain-bound rules will apply there (due to en/known-issues-chrome#gmail).
3. Gmail thing will most likely stay, I don't see this bug being resolved any time soon. And $object-subrequest/$xmlhttprequest will most likely stay useless since Chrome isn't capable of intercepting either.

[Ares2]

Thanks.

But the plan is to make blocking rules actually block things in the future, right?

1. Exception rules are ignored for blocking . The rules that currently only hide will consider exceptions properly however.

So for the example, one would have to disable the blocking rule ||tradedoubler.com^$third-party and then add something like .tradedoubler.com/ (would ||tradedoubler.com^ only be hiding as well?) and then the exception rule will work?

[Wladimir Palant]

||tradedoubler.com^ only hides, yes.

The plan is to make blocking rules work "normally". The trouble is really Chrome's architecture - the background process has all the necessary data but getting it to the tab process (the one that needs to make the blocking decision) is problematic. Right now the tabs have only limited data - a list of domains to block. The changes to Adblock Plus/Firefox that I am working on right now (allow caching matcher data on disk) will also make it easier to share the data between processes in Chrome, meaning that the tab processes will have all the necessary data.

[Hubird]

These changes to ABP/ Firefox that you speak of, will they benefit Firefox users or a they just to make life easier for Chrome ABP development ?

[Wladimir Palant]

Hubird, these changes should largely improve startup performance.

[Hubird]

Great !

Thanks for the clarification.

[Steve]

Thanks for the enlightenment.