...deuiore wrote: I mean, it doesn't really look good, it's written in invalid HTML 4.01 and it doesn't seem like it's maintained at all: some of the images aren't even showing and their links don't work!
Does it matter that the markup is not 100% W3C validator valid when it's a browser-specific page that renders correctly in the intended client to be used in? No. I don't have to be compatible with any other browser.
Does it matter that it's a slightly older (but no less functional) HTML standard? No. In fact, the entire website is HTML 4.01.
Is it maintained? Sure is. Does that mean it can't be static? No.
If it renders correctly in Pale Moon then that is all that really matters. Keep in mind: I kept the old layout and old standard to remain compatible with the legacy version of Pale Moon for a while, since it's the default home page for it. When I have time, I will undoubtedly modernize the start page.
Once more: if you don't like the default choices, and want to enter a custom URL instead, you can change it in about:config (and PMC in the future). It's not my intention to ever supply any non-palemoon new tab link from the browser core and create bias that way for any particular service or page. That would be playing favorites and not being vendor-neutral.
And yes, it does render correctly. There are no missing images and links do work (unless you are, of course, blocking them with extensions, firewall, any other content blocking method). All images are contained on the same web server the page is served from, so if one loads, they should all load.
