Johannes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 04:19:26PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Johannes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 03:43:48PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Johannes wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 01:18:49PM +0100, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:27:36AM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 02:01:46AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > bb wrote: > > > You sent me an option switch to forbid dillo to request another domain > > > as that of the actually used page: > > > http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2009-September/006844.htm... > > > > > > How can I patch Dillo in this way? > > > It might be useful to have that as an option in Dillo, I am shure not > > > every user is comfortable with that restriction. > > > > I just remembered that I had another version later in the thread, > > and I just took a couple of minutes to get the patch to apply cleanly again. > > > > http://www.dillo.org/test/filtering.2.patch > > I like the patch! > > Please set PREFS_FILTER_SAME_DOMAIN as the default, so we can > give it broader testing from the Hg repo. My idea is to commit, > if you agree, and to polish from the repo.
I also agree. It would be cool if we could replace rejected web bugs with some ugly little pixmap, so people see them on the page and can analyze the url. That could also help with improving our heuristics to find the web bugs.
What do you think about just flagging suspicious images with some browser specific CSS thing (class, id, pseudo-class we.) Then we can specify something like
img:-dillo-potential-web-bug {display: none}
or
img:-dillo-potential-web-bug {border: 2px solid red}
Other browser also have specific extensions like this, e.g. -moz-broken, -moz-user-disabled
CSS might be completely disabled.
Remote CSS yes, but this stuff would be put into the user agent stylesheet (css.cc) or the user stylesheet (~/.dillo/style.css). These two can't be disabled.
Oh, I see.
I don't want to make requests for those images at all, though.
Yes, but provided I can get the display:none stuff working some day, they would not be loaded at all if
img:-dillo-potential-web-bug {display: none}
is set. Additionally the user could do some fancy stuff by overriding this setting in his user stylesheet. I think disabling image loading is implemented similarly in other browsers.
Oh, I see (again :) It would be nice to have something like you said before, with a pixmap (or alt text) making it clear what's going on, and that can be clicked to load or whatever. Would we implement the content property or something?