That's the goal, to have community-driven rulesets, or as you said, your own rulesets centralized somewhere for you to fetch.
I agree with this. Ideally the extension should redirect to a blank page with a link and inform the user a page is trying to redirect. You may file an issue, and not sure whether there is a solid solution for this, but I think there is, now that I have played a lot more with the chrome API following uBlock.
I think it would be great if there were some networking between uBlock and uMatrix so you can see what uBlock is blocking in uMatrix.. IMHO.
At first I was planning to, but given that scopes in HTTPSB are sandboxed while not the case in uMatrix, that might be too much code to write just for that one time purpose, I have a limited amount of time, and even less so in the coming weeks.
Okay no worries, thanks. It's just that it's been a lot of painstaking time and effort to forge and customize a ruleset, that it would be a shame to have to start over if I went a different approach, which leads me to my next question... do you think it's beneficial to go with the uBlock and uMatrix combo over that of only httpsb?
That's the question of the day, because ublock has evolved past httpsb and umatrix is well on its way. I'm using them both at the moment.
So am I. @wat0114: IMO, you should definitely disable pattern-based filtering in HTTPSB and use µBlock instead since it's definitely superior in this field. If it comes to replacing HTTPSB with µMatrix - well, you may prefer to wait a bit until it's out of the alpha state or available from the webstore, but I think it's already very stable and its new approach offers obvious benefits over HTTPSB. It's a pity that it's not possible to import your HTTPSB rules but it's understandable since the syntax is rather different. However, if you make a backup of your rules in HTTPSB and open the generated text file while you're surfing your favorite websites with µMatrix, it's much easier and faster to determine which cells have to be whitelisted.
Consider HTTPSB dead; µBlock+µMatrix is the substitute. I don't think there's a reason to stay on HTTPSB. Please Gorhill, upload it on Google Store before being too much busy. The warning at start is boring (telling you you should not use third party extensions...). Wow. That was a long time I've not been that enthusiast with an application/extension/module.
Any plans to further streamline the rule syntax? Very minor gripe, but as it is now it seems unnecessarily repetitious/cluttered to me.
"Origin webpage" "element from this webpage" "type of element" "allow or deny". Impossible to be easier.
I haven't tried uMatrix yet, I'm still using HTTPSB. It's my only 3rd party extension and I really like it. But I'm wondering if there's a chance you'll add an option to filter images from OTHER in uMatrix ? I prefer to always have OTHER blocked (mainly to block HTML5 audio/video) so when I have to save an image it can get a bit annoying. That's actually the only nitpick I have with HTTPSB currently. By the way I noticed in task manager, HTTPSB's icon defaults to the generic "puzzle" icon. I've created a quick 16*16 icon for it (or uMatrix) . Feel free to use (or not) if you like it.
I just tried, and I could save an image by selecting "Save image as..." in the context menu even though I blocked the `other` column. Trying to understand why it works now, I find out that another piece of code which I added to work around some versions of Chromium not properly classifying a request with proper type is actually solving this issue. Regarding the icon, I don't think the icon is supposed to appear in the task manager, I don't remember seeing any for any extension.
Thanks for the reply gorhill. I'm using the latest stable Chrome (38 - Windows) and Save Images does work sometimes but more often than not I have to enable other. Anyway if this issue is solved in uMatrix, I'll gladly use it when it's stable. I'm using HTTPSB with all the ubiquitous rules unchecked so I'm sure the transition will be painless for me. And thanks for the great work on these extensions, they are what finally decided me to move to Chrome for good from Opera 12 a few months ago
I like the new rules syntax, easy to understand and edit manually, but what I meant was that I didn't see the need to have a new line for each request type. I guess it's needed for cross site stuff though. I'd imagine site rules could be on one line and compacted more, but that's nit picking.
@gorhill: It looks like you can upload your extension and don't make it public if you want to beta test it. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=337734#c4 Dat ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ bubble won't disappear and I don't want to use dev channel just for this... PS: Btw, "HTTPSB" is mentioned when you hover blocked frames (instead of µMatrix).
One directive per line is really the safest way for the parser and future ruleset maintainer IMO, because whitespaces are used to separate a set number of fields. But there are shortcuts. For example: twitch.tv jtvnw.net * allow Can be rewritten twitch.tv jtvnw.net * Or even twitch.tv jtvnw.net The request type default to *, while the action default to allow (since the preferred way of using uMatrix is deny-default, it's how it will ship given that now there is a 1st-party row which helps a lot not break sites).
That would be pretty cool. Sort of like Stylish does. BTW for some reason I find uMatrix easier to work with than HTTPSB was. I think the '1st Party' thing helps. Fantastic work you've done.