Add a new rule to check for Extended CSS usage without the correct separator

[Alex-302]

• beverfood.com#$#a[href^="/bnlink/?bnid="] { remove: true; }

{ remove: true; } can be used only with #$?#

• Warn, if used an extended CSS selector with ## marker.
  ##div:contains(a)
##div:has(> table:contains(a))
  Not including :has() without not native selectors, like ##div:has(> table) / #?#div:has(> table).

[scripthunter7]

This rule should work both ways:

• if Extended CSS was used without the appropriate separator, like ##div:contains(foo)
• and on the other hand, if plain CSS was used with Extended CSS separator: #?#div

In addition, the rule must also create a fix, which means replacing the separator:

• ##div:contains(foo)

  ↓↓↓ should be fixed as ↓↓↓

  #?#div:contains(foo)

• #$#div:contains(foo) { padding-top: 0 !important; }

  ↓↓↓ should be fixed as ↓↓↓

  #$?#div:contains(foo) { padding-top: 0 !important; }

• #?#div

  ↓↓↓ should be fixed as ↓↓↓

  ##div

• #$?#div { padding-top: 0 !important; }

  ↓↓↓ should be fixed as ↓↓↓

  #$#div { padding-top: 0 !important; }

[AdamWr]

• #?#div

  ↓↓↓ should be fixed as ↓↓↓

  ##div

• #$?#div { padding-top: 0 !important; }

  ↓↓↓ should be fixed as ↓↓↓

  #$#div { padding-top: 0 !important; }

Regarding these two last examples.
I think that for apps in some cases it might still be valid.
The problem is that if there is element with inline style, for example like this:

<h1 style="display: block !important; position: relative !important;">Example Domain</h1>

then in apps, the rule like this:

##h1

will not hide this element, because inline style has higher specificity/priority.
So using:

#?#h1

for this case might be a valid solution, the same for CSS (#$?#) rule.

I don't have anything against about warning that such rules can be used without ?, but I think that it would be a good idea to take into consideration that these rules still might be valid in some cases.

[Alex-302]

@AdamWr Maybe better to change all extended css rules with native :has() once? The main purpose of this - using native :has().

[AdamWr]

I think that changing rules to use native :has() is a good idea.

I'm not sure if it was related to my comment above, but if so, then I meant rule like this:

#?#h1

there is no :has(), and it might be used intentionally in the case of apps, to hide element with inline style like in example above, or in the case where for some other reason applying CSS rules do not work or stylesheet has been removed.

[Alex-302]

there is no :has(), and it might be used intentionally in the case of apps, to hide element with inline style like in example above

#?#h1

Rules like this we will not change.