Need help? Check out our Support site, then

Upcoming changes to CSS code usage: Allowable and unallowable inline code

  1. As you might have heard, a week ago, Matt announced that would soon be stripping out embedded CSS code for users who have not purchased the CSS upgrade. The example that he specifically identified would be verboten was written by panaghiotisadam and is as follows:

    <div style="position:fixed;top:0;left:0;background:#HEX_HERE;width:100%;height:100%;z-index:-11;"></div>

    Now, given that Adam's code is actually an example of inline CSS, not embedded CSS, and that embedded CSS appears in the header of a document, which users have no access to, I'm guessing that Matt actually meant that inline CSS code would soon be stripped out.

    I'm okay with this and understand the need for such a change, but I am now wondering exactly what style attributes would henceforth be stripped out. All of them? Only a few select attributes?

    I'm asking because I do not have the CSS upgrade and I use a few attributes on my blog and would like to prepare for the upcoming change by removing the offending code in advance. Obviously, I would not like my layout and formatting to one day turn suddenly into mush, so I am interested in taking a proactive approach in editing my posts and pages.

    Thank you for your time.

  2. I should probably be more specific about the types of style attributes that I am wondering about by giving some examples, both to illustrate what I often use, and provide samples for users who might not be as familiar with the type of code being discussed here.

    • To center some of my post and page titles, I use style='text-align:center;'.
    • I will sometimes use code such as style='margin:2px; padding:1px; border:1px;' when positioning my pictures.
    • Occasionally, I use style='color:#ffffff;' and style='font:12px sans-serif;' to change the appearance of my text.

    A [comprehensive?] list of attributes can be found here: All of them can be used as inline code except for the CSS Pseudo-classes/elements at the bottom of that page.

    So, which of the listed attributes will be stripped out, and which will be allowed to stay?

    Thanks again.

  3. Posting in the forum's not likely to get you an informed answer. Contact staff directly and ask; they mostly leave the forums to the volunteers.

    And, in my experience, this is absolutely typical of the kinds of questions they refuse to answer anyway. But good luck!

  4. I think it's okay to ask this question in the forum. After all, the Support staff does make important announcements here all the time. For example, when Platial went down late last month, andreitr chose to post the announcement here in the forum to let everybody know that would be removing that widget. And don't forget that Matt himself made the announcement about the upcoming CSS changes here in the forum as well.

    Plus, your response has slightly deterred me from writing to Support directly, since you think that they won't respond to me directly about this particular inquiry anyway. ;)

    So for now, I'm okay with leaving this question here so that both members and staff can talk about it as they come and go. I'm sure there are other users who are interested in making edits to their blogs in preparation for the upcoming changes, so they'll find this information useful too!

  5. If they are going to strip out inline CSS, they're probably just use a filter to strip out the style property of all html tags instead of just a selected few. This is just what I would do to save time but who knows what the staff is really planning to do.

    Just a random thought, the pseudo names at the bottom of w3schools' list should be called selectors instead of classes/elements.

  6. That's an interesting thought, and while I agree that that would be the simplest solution, I don't think it will happen. regularly suggests the use of several style attributes, to change the look of text for example. If they were to completely strip out all instances of inline CSS, they would need to develop alternative ways for people to make such edits. They could create their own shortcode for such purposes, but that seems like an extremely tedious solution that would require lots of testing and bug fixes for what is otherwise a very simple task when using inline CSS.

    I think they are more likely to strip out only certain attributes. For example, the use of
    in text widgets can be used to emulate styles that would otherwise be possible only if a user purchased the CSS upgrade. I can see them eliminating all instances of that code in text widgets. That would stop those users from applying that sort of styling to their blog while being minimally disruptive to the rest of the bloggers.

    The question now, of course, is what other attributes will be stripped out?

    Oh, and I do not know why Pseudo-classes/elements are named as such on that website. I'm not involved with that site, so you'll have to ask the webmaster.

  7. Feeling very agreeable today:
    @enilamalenj, agree with you that it's a reasonable question to ask here
    @rain, agree with you that it might not be answered here, at least not officially and in detail
    @enilamalenj, agree again that some, rather than all, attributes, are likely to be stripped out.

    Also finding it fun to speculate about how this is going to go:

  8. That post is a great summary of the issues at hand, andrew.

    Currently, I believe that the Support staff will announce the changes here in the forum. If you think about it, there are essentially only two far-reaching ways that they can use to make an announcement to the entire community: their frontpage blog, or these forums.

    I've yet to see them write a negative post about on their blog (not that they would, since doing so would really take away from the posts about's great services), and as such, they certainly won't be using that valuable space to announce the removal of features from their blogging service.

    That leaves the forums. And as I have already pointed out when I mentioned the death of Platial above, it's not unusual for them to use the forums as a medium to disclose any unfortunate news and changes to the service. Aside from that, when these changes finally do go into effect, where do you think concerned bloggers will race to for answers about the sudden changes to the styling of their blogs? They'll come here to the forums of course, and we and the staff will be ready to help point out the new code restrictions.

    The obvious question, besides that of what CSS attributes will be allowed and disallowed, is when this announcement will be made. I previously mentioned that I'd be interested in checking my blog for any offending code right now so that when the restrictions do roll out, the styling of my blog doesn't suddenly degrade into something unwanted. I'm sure that I'm not the only person who has thought about doing this. And the staff must have already considered the benefits of being proactive about the upkeep of our blogs, or rather, the disbenefits of not informing bloggers until after the fact. In light of wanting to avoid mass hysterical cries of "OMG, what happened to my blog!?" I think they will be addressing this issue sooner rather than later.

    And yes, I'm aware that there are bloggers who don't pay attention and who will be flipping out when the changes go into effect regardless. That's just too bad for them. ;D

  9. Currently, I believe that the Support staff will announce the changes here in the forum.

    Uummm... history would say you are being way too optimistic. Matt's drive-by, referenced in the first post in this thread, will likely be the only warning you get. One minute your inline CSS will work and the next minute it will not.

  10. But I think we deserve an anwer, so I'll repeat my questions: Why is it a "loophole"? Why must it "go away"? And what exactly will go away?

  11. Why is it a "loophole"? Why must it "go away"?

    Because bad guys use it to do bad things.

  12. Yes, we can all hope for a definitive answer to what is this "loophole" and why and what must "go away" because of it.

    Without that though, what can anyone do? Besides make provisions to: leave, stay and pay, will stay and pay still work, will basic 'normal' formating still work,

    A separate set of issues:
    What about the strange ways the visual editor now works…
    will those quirks be fixed in this "closing loopholes?'

    —the visual editor automaticallyadds paragraph text styling to centered images
    —the html editor no longer accepts & frac12 ; sans spaces to make 1/2 (or similarily for the fraction 1/4) unless one switches to the visual editor before updating…
    —both the visual and html editor are adding curly quotes to code even when using the codes: & quot ; or & #34 ; (sans spaces) which used to work?
    —There are differences between both the visual editor and the html editor and
    how the editor for text widgets work: specifically with alignment of text and images.

  13. @Tellyworth

    Because bad guys use it to do bad things.

    I'm not buying that unless you become more specific. What exactly is going away?

    Surely to God it can't be a little code here and there to enhance my blog's appearance by injecting some color. :(

    I'd like to know exactly what bad things can be done by adding a nice background color like I did to to my About page? What security threat could that possibly present?

  14. @ tellyworth: In my previous post above I was almost ready to add the question "why is tellyworth silent on this?", so thanks for dropping by!

    But, to tell the truth, your reply isn't convincing at all. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't see how code such as the one I suggested can be used maliciously. The impression we're getting is that you just want to kill code that allows us to do something for free instead of having to buy the CSS upgrade.

    Anyway, what you decide to allow or not allow is your business, not mine; but as a forum volunteer –especially as one who gives many replies on html and inline CSS– I'd really like to know what exactly is going to go away. (So far my impression is that WP doesn't know either.)

  15. I'd rather not provide the details, but it has been used maliciously. We need to prevent that.

    I don't know exactly what will be filtered, but things like absolute positioning will certainly be blocked from within style attributes (not from custom css). I don't believe the intention is to stop simple styles like colour and font settings from style attributes.

  16. @ tellyworth: I too thank you for telling us what you are able, while being mystified as to how the code posted here presents a security loophole.
    I think it is a loophole in a different sense: it is an "artificial" way to style the whole blog - a task that belongs to CSS - from within a sidebar widget. From one perspective, such code can be seen as breaking the deal: this much for free, here's the price list for these other things.

  17. Thanks again! If it has been used maliciously, then of course you mustn't provide the details. (Although I'm dying to know... Any chance you'd indulge me after it's taken care of?)

  18. The only "malicious" thing I can think of right now is using inline CSS to redirect visitors to other sites (linked from the header image).

  19. ("it's taken care of" above should read "it's been taken care of", of course.)

    @devblog: Thanks too! That by itself isn't malicious: depends on the kind of site you redirect. If you're redirecting to the wrong kind of site, then you're violating the TOS. In that case it's the blog that should be killed, not the code!

  20. f you're redirecting to the wrong kind of site, then you're violating the TOS. In that case it's the blog that should be killed, not the code!

    I agree 100%.

    Also, Matt said that only those who have the CSS upgrade would still be able to use _that_ kind of code... Now, I wonder, if the bad guys have "maliciously" use inline CSS to do their bad deeds, how's wp gonna stop them if they decide to fork the $15.00 upgrade and keep doing it? WP would have to archive their blogs, of course...

  21. Been wondering that myself...

  22. I'm glad to see that there are a few more positive responses now. Before Adam posted, it seemed like everybody except Andrew had something negative to say about's support. In my experience, provides the best support of any free blogging service. The active forums and quick-replying staff are a testament to that.

    Returning to the topic, for the past two days, I've begun trying out different CSS attributes to see which ones are likely to be abused and stripped out. I asked for help from one of my friends, who's more skilled at using CSS than I am, and he sent me some code that he found on a site that teaches people how to use inline CSS on Surprisingly, I found the code to all be pretty unastounding. The only attribute I found that normal people would probably not need to use inline is
    The rest all seem to do pretty basic stuff: making text bigger and smaller, changing their font and color, adding a space above some text, wrapping text around the sides of pictures... They're code that aren't likely to be candidates for being stripped out. Maybe it's because I'm don't use that much inline CSS anyway, or that don't know how to use it in a "tricky" manner, but these attributes seem to do only basic, unremarkable stuff that can't be used to alter the themes. There don't seem, to me at least, to be many ways to abuse them. So maybe the upcoming changes aren't going to be as big of a deal as I thought, since few attributes seem worthy of removal.

    Until we get some more definitive answers about what will stay and go, I'm curious to hear what code other people think are being used to get around the CSS restrictions. Maybe in the mean time, we can develop our own list of candidates that will likely be stripped out in the upcoming changes.

    Thank you, tellyworth, for sharing what you know. It's good to see some confirmation that the basic styling attributes will likely remain, which is pretty much what I concluded from my experimentation with that sort of code.

    I agree with Andrew and Adam that some of the "abuse" is likely coming from users who are trying to bend the rules and find ways to use the custom CSS features without paying for it. Maybe those users aren't aware that this hurts, both financially and by creating a community of haves-and-have-nots using unscrupulous means. But, I think I might know of the physically malicious, damaging uses that tellyworth is mentioning. It might have to do with the two attributes I've previously highlighted for removal, and possibly a third. Like tellyworth and Adam have said, it's probably not wise to talk about it here, in case somebody tries to have some "fun" before the changes go into place.

  23. More of posts in this discussion has been deleted while I was reading!

  24. I'm very sorry. I was reading two items at same time, and mistake.

  25. Not to worry. We all make mistakes. In fact I'm quite accomplished at doing so at least once or twice every day. :D

  26. Worried with the "loophole", "bad guys" and "bad things", security or financially ...
    Let us (not upgraded to CSS edition) change font family, size and color, and many other things that don't damage security and/or financially!
    (Sorry for this writing, without any kind of dictionary)

  27. Thank you, timethief, you are very kind :)

  28. @ludusnaturae
    I am likewise worried but I'm trying to remain optimistic that the final decision will not be to remove the ability to use inline CSS for minor style and color changes that do not threaten security. A forum search will evidence the fact that I was the Volunteer who drew Staff attention to using inline CSS to redirect visitors to other sites (linked from the header image) could be problematic.

    I have been a wordpress fan for years and will likely remain one, but I tell you that it's very hard to explain to those who have come from Blogger where they do not have to pay to make background color and font changes and can do so with a click of a button that they have to pay to do that here, and then do the work required, as well as renewing payment every year.

    Blogger also introduced a brand new Template Designer on March 11, 2010 featuring:

    • 15 new, highly-customizable templates, split into four families: Simple, Picture Window, Awesome Inc, and Watermark
    • One-, two-, and three-column layouts for each template, with complete control over the size and arrangement of the columns
    See >

    It's hard not to feel envious and difficult to take the ribbing contrasting what's available free of charge that I'm getting for being a fan girl. :(

  29. Congratulations for Blogger users!
    But I will stay down in WordPress, me and us (in another blog), with more or less HTML available.
    I (we) have a lot of reasons to choose WordPress (...).
    I (we) will likely remain WordPress fan, too.


    As of now, on blogs that don't have the CSS upgrade we will strip the "position" property on save. That means you can keep your existing CSS in posts or widgets, but the next time you save it, it runs through the new filter and the "position" property will be lost.

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

About this Topic