[add-art dev] word back from Boris and Wlad

[Steve Lambert]

2 messages from the dudes...


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Wladimir Palant <trev at adblockplus.org>
> Date: March 27, 2008 12:07:25 PM EDT
> To: Steve Lambert <slambert at eyebeam.org>
> Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at MIT.EDU>,  Add-Art Advisor Group  
> discussion list <supperclub at lists.add-art.org>
> Subject: Re: Add-Art & FF3
>
> Steve Lambert wrote:
>> We are currently testing in ff3.0b4 and our plugin is working.   
>> The problem bug #384778 ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ 
>> show_bug.cgi?id=384778 ), should break Add-Art in  
>> mozilla1.9alpha1.  But FF3.0b4 = mozilla1.9beta3.  Does this mean  
>> the bug is not going to be a problem?
>
> The binding you attached is only used for images, objects and  
> frames. This part of the extension doesn't have any problem with  
> bug 384778, and for Firefox 3 you can indeed simplify it by  
> attaching the binding to :-moz-suppressed CSS pseudo-class and  
> removing all the ABP-specific hooks (only that it won't work for  
> frames, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424970).  
> The problem was only with the code that handles blocked scripts -  
> and it seems that 80% of the ads are currently served as scripts.
>
> regards
> Wladimir
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at MIT.EDU>
> Date: March 27, 2008 1:49:48 AM EDT
> To: Steve Lambert <slambert at eyebeam.org>
> Cc: Wladimir Palant <trev at adblockplus.org>, Add-Art Advisor Group  
> discussion list <supperclub at lists.add-art.org>
> Subject: Re: Add-Art & FF3
>
> Steve Lambert wrote:
>> It looks like our code (courtesy of wladimir) is pretty similar to  
>> your solution, Boris.  Am I wrong?
>
>
> Yeah, that sounds like what I was suggesting.
>
> -Boris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.add-art.org/pipermail/supperclub-add-art.org/attachments/20080328/b2b3065e/attachment.htm