From 92f753e4c177101b6947962f19cd8634168f3a71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:55:08 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Static filter syntax (markdown) --- Static-filter-syntax.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Static-filter-syntax.md b/Static-filter-syntax.md index c0aec84..b84ce52 100644 --- a/Static-filter-syntax.md +++ b/Static-filter-syntax.md @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ By default, the implicit purpose of cosmetic filters is to hide unwanted DOM ele So mainly it's exactly the same syntax of plain cosmetic filters (i.e. must be a valid CSS selector), except that the `:style(...)` suffix is appended at the end. The content in the parentheses must be one or more [CSS property declarations](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Syntax) (separated by the standard `;`). It is not allowed to use property values with `url(...)`, such `style:`-based cosmetic filters will be discarded. -As with the other new cosmetic filtering selectors, the `:style` can be used only for _specific_ cosmetic filters, i.e. there must be a hostname of entity specified for the filter. +As with the other new cosmetic filtering selectors, the `:style` can be used only for _specific_ cosmetic filters, i.e. there must be a hostname or entity specified for the filter. Adguard [already support such feature](https://adguard.com/en/filterrules.html#cssInjection), although using a different syntax. However uBO is able to transparently convert and make use of the Adguard's "CSS injection rules" if ever you use an Adguard filter list in uBO (well, this essentially means you can use Adguard's syntax in uBO if you prefer).