Notice: The devs are no longer actively involved in the forum, so any bug reports regarding the Stylish extension or this website should be sent to them directly at contact@userstyles.org.
Changing your Avatar.
The only way to currently change a forum avatar is through Gravatar.com. The email address used for your Userstyles.org account must be one of the email addresses that is registered to your Gravatar account.

Support for OpenNIC domains in the style parser (site doesn't allow to upload styles for them)

All domains available through public OpenNIC DNS:
https://www.opennic.org/

First-level domains provided by OpenNIC:
.bbs
.chan
.dyn
.fur
.geek
.gopher
.indy
.libre
.neo
.null
.o
.oss
.oz
.parody
.pirate

Namecoin first-level domains available through OpenNIC:
.bit

Emercoin first-level domains available through OpenNIC:
.lib
.coin
.emc
.bazar

Also, a few more domains for new nations (also available through OpenNIC):
http://new-nations.net/en/

Comments

  • I am pretty sure you can make it work by using the RegEx format instead of domain:

    @-moz-document regexp('https?://www\\.example\\.(geek|neo|pirate).*') {
        /* font-size:14px; */
    }
    
  • Well, most likely it's possible to work it around like this, but it's a dirty hack rather than a proper solution. All extensions for user styles I know doesn't care if these domains are in the list and apply styles properly. This site does care, though, and forces me to use workarounds if I want to host a style which contains one of such domains in the list
    Also, writing proper regexp ain't that simple. As for example URL could be https://password:username@few.subdomains.example.geek:123/ or something even more ridiculous. Using standard domain('example.geek') to address this is way better than constructing regexp.
  • edited February 2018 Firefox

    If you hope the devs will fix anything, you're wrong. They don't read the forums and they don't change anything as long as they can gather data.

    RegEx is not a dirty hack but fully legit.

    RegEx writing is not simple, sure, but what kind of URLs do you want to support?
    You can derive an arbitrary complex RegEx from these RegExes built for URL verification.

  • edited February 2018 Chrome
    > RegEx is not a dirty hack but fully legit.

    Well, true, but the only reason it's needed is because this site just has to 'validate' something it shouldn't and there is no option to skip it since it's considered as an error (!!!) rather than a warning.

    Well, technically I can use something as simple as this:
    regexp('^https?://([^./]+\\.)*?example\\.lib[:/]') and be done with it.
    I just don't like the idea of using regexps when they are not needed in the first place.

    > If you hope the devs will fix anything, you're wrong. They don't read the forums and they don't change anything as long as they can gather data.

    I thought they do read at least this one. After all it's a sub-forum directly related to this site. Is there a bugtracker where I can register this issue or any other mean to contact them?
  • Well, true, but the only reason it's needed is because this site just has to 'validate' something it shouldn't and there is no option to skip it since it's considered as an error (!!!) rather than a warning.

    I fully agree.

    Is there a bugtracker where I can register this issue or any other mean to contact them?

    Not that I know of. Don't hope too much, but you can try to send it via contact form. I guess it's rarely used so you will have some extra attention when that mail shows up somewhere.

Sign In or Register to comment.