PLEASE PROVIDE PROPER HTML5 SUPPORT

[boxfreind]

HTML 5 is the future. Java and Flash are the outdated, broken, and vulnerability strewn past. For PaleMoon to survive into the next generation it NEEDS to have full support for HTML5 and Silverlight. This means at the forefront, adding support for DRM. Without DRM, there will bo no chance of support on sites like Netflix or Comcast.
I know we're talking about a small outfit here, but if I can't use mainstream sites like Netflix, Comcast On Demand, HBO Go, etc with it, it is useless to me. I LOVE the customizations that PaleMoon offers and hope that compatibility is going to improve soon....but for now I'm going to have to switch back to FireFox and Chrome, too many sites have stopped working with PaleMoon in the last few months for me to deal with the headache. Also the last two updates broke compatibility with numerous extensions that I use on a daily basis, namely Right2Click, Internet Download Manager, Magic Actions for YouTube, Video Download Helper, 1MobileDownloader's APK Downloader, Google Calendar, Checker Plus for Google Calendar, AdF.ly Skipper, FlashBlock/FlashControl, and HTML5 Autoplay blocker.
PS: Not even the page for the HTML5 Compatibility test works in PaleMoon now: http://html5test.com/

[Fedor2]

I would rather object, why is to add all new features blindly? It has so many bad sides. lets pop up webrtc or webpush. If a site wont play without them, then to hell that site. And what about sliverlight? As i know this is useless and poor substitution of the flash, glad i did not see any site required it ever.

Not even the page for the HTML5 Compatibility test works

Works fine

[boxfreind]

Your reply and attitude is extremely elitist and borderline snobbish.
Most people would find not being able to use NetFlix, the largest video streaming site on the internet, to be a bit more than an inconvenience. EVERY mainstream browser has added DRM support now, FF, Chrome, Opera, IE, even Edge. It's not an advanced or unnecessary feature anymore, it is a basic and vital feature for video streaming.
"glad i did not see any site required it ever."
Sites that REQUIRE Silverlight: NetFlix, Amazon Instant Video, Comcast, etc
"useless and poor substitution of the flash"
No Silverlight is FAR SUPERIOR to "the Flash" as you call it, as it provides additional features Adobe has shirked such as search engine optimization plus it is far easier and smoother to integrate into APIs. In addition, it is far less susceptible to exploits and other vulnerabilities. With the addition of DRM, it is also ideal for distribution of protected digital content such as movies and TV. Flash is incredibly easy to capture and/or download. Silverlight is not.
I should add that straight up HTML5 is even better than Silverlight but anything is better than Flash.
"let's add webrtc"
Uhhh no, webrtc can die in a fire.
"Works fine"
Did you even try and do anything on that site beyond just going to the website's front page and saying "Works"? Because I can guarantee you it does not, try and compare browsers here: http://html5test.com/compare/browser/mybrowser.html
You will see that if you go to click the + button to add a browser, the list is blank. Try it in Chrome and it just works. To be sure, I have tried this in both the x86 and x64 versions of Pale Moon on three different computers and it just does not work.
Why are you so defensive of a browser you have not part in creating? You are not even a moderator. I DID mention I am a huge fan of PaleMoon but that I just need more basic functionality to work for it to continue to be useful for me.

[Nigaikaze]

For PaleMoon to survive into the next generation it NEEDS to have full support for HTML5 and Silverlight.

Microsoft is no longer actively developing Silverlight. As a matter of fact, Silverlight's EOL is in 2021, Chrome dropped support for it in 2015, and Edge doesn't support it. That's not "next generation" or "future" technology.

In-browser DRM is not on Pale Moon's (and that's how you spell it, not PaleMoon) roadmap. You can search prior threads to see Moonchild's opinions on it. Here's one example:

I'm not likely to implement DRM in future versions of Pale Moon, especially since it requires the inclusion of closed-source components that you're not even allowed to look at. If that means I'm being "nonconformist" with the big players, then so be it.

[Nigaikaze]

Did you even try and do anything on that site beyond just going to the website's front page and saying "Works"? Because I can guarantee you it does not, try and compare browsers here: http://html5test.com/compare/browser/mybrowser.html
You will see that if you go to click the + button to add a browser, the list is blank.

It would've been more helpful for you to have said that in the first place rather than "the page doesn't work." I'm getting a "ReferenceError: build is not defined" in the error console for line 894 of http://html5test.com/scripts/reporting.js. Looks like that function is the JavaScript function that builds that list. Erroring out at that point is probably why that list ends up blank.

[boxfreind]

I do understand and respect Moonchild's decision there to not go along with the "big boys" but i foresee it being PaleMoon's death sentence. You can't really expect to succeed with something like a web browser without making it work with the mainstream sites on the web. Sometime's you have to compromise on some things, all life is about compromise. No one get's everything they want so you have to sacrifice some stuff so you get what's most important for you. I guess what's most important for me is no longer what's important for Pale Moon. I would think that this is also important with lot's of it's users. I hate constantly having to open a site in another browser because it's not displaying properly on PM. It ruins my workflow.
In an added note, maybe it's more the internet as a whole that is broken, perhaps by design (looking at you NSA), and we are just piling band-aid after band-aid on a gaping knife wound.

[boxfreind]

And in regards to Java, i ******* hate Java. Such a pile of shit, and we just CANNOT seem to be rid of it. It needs to die.

[Nigaikaze]

And in regards to Java ....

For the record, Java and JavaScript are two different things.

[adisib]

HTML5 support will improve in time, as it has. But there is a reason that all of the other browsers haven't rushed to maximize HTML5 support with their multi-million dollar budgets. Adding that support makes bigger executables, possibly reduced performance, and may have to be immediately redone as the spec continuously changes. With Pale Moon's smaller developing power, it is better for it to be directed towards things that are more important before adding unused HTML5 features. DRM however, it its own separate matter.

I do understand and respect Moonchild's decision there to not go along with the "big boys" but i foresee it being PaleMoon's death sentence.
...
In an added note, maybe it's more the internet as a whole that is broken, perhaps by design (looking at you NSA), and we are just piling band-aid after band-aid on a gaping knife wound.

I would lean toward the latter. In my opinion, Pale Moon has almost always based its development around having good design philosophy (including wanting to avoid DRM), only compromising where there just isn't enough manpower to do anything but compromise. That if anything could be its downfall; the development team isn't as big as it should be, and that accounts for almost all of the complaints about the browser. With the bigger browsers, you can't say the same; there is much that other Pale Moon users and I agree was done both intentionally and incorrectly. The design goals and trajectory of the project is the biggest draw for me. The number of developers, list of features, amount of bugs, etc., can always be improved, but if the design philosophy is off then everything else will also be to some extent. Pale Moon might be limited in the amount of good they can add within a timeframe, but at least you know they aren't adding bad things like DRM at the same time.

[GMforker]

Did you even try and do anything on that site beyond just going to the website's front page and saying "Works"? Because I can guarantee you it does not, try and compare browsers here: http://html5test.com/compare/browser/mybrowser.html
You will see that if you go to click the + button to add a browser, the list is blank.

It would've been more helpful for you to have said that in the first place rather than "the page doesn't work." I'm getting a "ReferenceError: build is not defined" in the error console for line 894 of http://html5test.com/scripts/reporting.js. Looks like that function is the JavaScript function that builds that list. Erroring out at that point is probably why that list ends up blank.

Last bad: Firefox 46.0a1 (2015-12-20)
Built from https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ ... a38d117434

First good: Firefox 46.0a1 (2015-12-21)
Built from https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ ... 1e54700dbe

Pushlog
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/p ... 1e54700dbe

bug #1071646 (and bug #1231758) is the suspect.

[Moonchild]

I do understand and respect Moonchild's decision there to not go along with the "big boys" but i foresee it being PaleMoon's death sentence. You can't really expect to succeed with something like a web browser without making it work with the mainstream sites on the web. Sometime's you have to compromise on some things, all life is about compromise.

Letting the demanding entitlement of this entire thread slide for a moment to prevent unnecessary flaming in both directions, your own statement here indicates exactly the problem: compromise is needed.

Keep in mind:

• Not a single browser implements everything of html5.
• There are parts of html5 that we don't want, to begin with, like access to your camera.
• Every "Web API" added, even if generally never used by websites, adds an attack surface. Security considerations are paramount.
• Html5 is not a set standard. html5 is a so-called 'living standard" meaning it can and will change on a whim.
• Even for the parts that are pretty well-established, the "standard" regularly is descriptive of the browser with the most influence rather than actually defining.
• mainstream web sites != a html test suite site (that on top isn't using browser-agnostic scripting, which tells you a lot about the reliability and focus of that site).
  Pale Moon works fine with mainstream web sites.

Our response to the above points is reactive, not pre-emptive. Why? because it's the only way this can be done. If a web compatibility issue becomes known, it'll be investigated. Blindly implementing everything a living standard cooks up "because they feel like it" or "because we think it's cool" or even "because we feel we need to come up with something new or people think we're not doing anything" is not very smart and some site out there using it as a result is also not compelling enough to invest in it. Web sites also have to compromise in that they have to look at their audience, and keep their site accessible to a broad audience (remember: putting a website up makes you a publisher!). New shinies "because you can" is fun, sure, but it's also a matter of adoption of what you're trying to use.

[Pyewacket]

I came here because my FF 38 has stopped working (something is broken and I can't get it to keep toolbar customizations, and yes I've tried every solution short of a complete uninstall, delete anything left behind, and reinstall).

I came here to specifically check on the issue of HTML5, Silverlight, etc. support.

I already couldn't play many youtube videos due to their switch to HTML5 way back when I was using Pale Moon 25.whatever. Upon reading Moonchild's adamant refusal to ever implement HTML5 back when the comment was originally posted, I went back to FF. I had no choice.

And no, I don't have the link to that comment (and its not the one above unless DRM is somehow hooked in to HTML5). I know for certain that I was unable to play most YouTube videos, and that was apparently due to a switch to HTML5. And that noises were made implying we could just forget that ever changing. When I originally asked that question, I was told to use another browser for those functions. If I have to use another browser to do totally normal browsing activities, I'll just use that browser. Switching back and forth is just stupid.

Now it seems I won't be able to watch Netflix or Amazon videos either due to no Silverlight support. I do not care if the end of life for Silverlight is FOUR FREAKIN' YEARS AWAY. Why should I give up being able to stream some of the most frequently used streaming sites for four years until Silverlight is gone and they start using something else - and given Silverlight is not getting any support in Pale Moon (if that is true) why would I think that Pale Moon would implement whatever they actually switch to either?

Hopefully the impression I've been getting is wrong. So in an effort to clear things up, here's my question - or actually, here are my questionS:

Will the current 27.x version of PM play any and ALL videos on Youtube? IF not, will it ever?

Does the current version work with Netfix, Hulu, Amazon, and all the major network streaming sites? If not, WILL it soon?

What other things can Pale Moon NOT do that Chrome and FF do? And "tracking you like a bloodhound all over the 'net" doesn't count, LOL!

I will not ever install another version of Firefox, not even an old version. FF is dead. Killing XUL et. al. and destroying the plugins I HAVE to have simply means that I must stop using it. If I can't have the extensions I need on FF, and I have to live without them, I'll just cut to the chase and switch to Chrome, however much I hate that.

In order for Pale Moon to be a viable option, there must be support for common tasks such as streaming video from the major players - Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, etc.

However I seem to hear over and over and over again that PM will NOT implement this or that totally normal browser function, ever.

If I am wrong in this, please correct me. But I need to make this decision now - Pale Moon (which I would much prefer if possible) or give up and be absorbed by the Google Collective?

I neither know nor care whether or not Silverlight and/or HTML5 are well-thought out or properly supported, or if there are alternative methods for streaming video on any particular site. I don't know the nitty-gritty details of how streaming is implemented by Netflix, Hulu, PBS, YouTube, ad infinitum.

I just want to know that I can go to any of these mainstream sites and they WILL (or will NOT) work in Pale Moon. That is not clear to me at this point. Please help to unconfuse me as to whether or not PM is a viable option for someone who just wants to surf-and-go, as it were.

[Giraffe]

I will not ever install another version of Firefox, not even an old version. FF is dead. Killing XUL et. al. and destroying the plugins I HAVE to have simply means that I must stop using it. If I can't have the extensions I need on FF, and I have to live without them, I'll just cut to the chase and switch to Chrome, however much I hate that.

Now, I'm not extolling the 'opposition', but there are a couple of possible alternatives that might be OK for you:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
which is kept up to date on security etc. whist avoiding the latest rubbish.

Then there's Cyberfox
https://8pecxstudios.com/
based on the latest Firefox but modified to be sensible. BTW, if you use Classic Theme Restorer, it's already part of Cyberfox, under Tools - Customize Cyberfox.

One that I've not tried, as my system is 32-bit, is Waterfox
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/#about
Claims that any extensions can be used.

[kizo07]

I can understand that some users have some issues...but anyway. Everything working fine here on this end.
I have fully functional Pale Moon, although I prefer to have as few add-ons and plugins as possible, to keep Pale Moon 'easy-going' and lightweight as is, out of box (for info: 8 active + 7 more add-ons and 2 plugins).
Since i use All-in-one gesture(original) add-on whose actually replace many add-ons I otherwise need + many more bookmarklets, I feel I have covered more than 70% of all add-ons whose exist.
Everything works just fine here, videos, music, downloads...still haven't found site that not work here, or is broken.
23.03 on win x64

btw...I understand that we are all different, with different wishes and needs, and that 'life is about compromise'...but I'm not quite sure that someone whose using word hate a lot, is willing to compromise at all...maybe better to say, I don't trust them blindly.

[Moonchild]

Upon reading Moonchild's adamant refusal to ever implement HTML5 back when the comment was originally posted, I went back to FF. I had no choice.

Excuse me, but I've never refused to implement HTML5. Nor ever refused to implement HTML5 video.
In fact, v27 has extended support for html5 video greatly with having media source extensions avalable, and we're working on improving the video back-end for all platforms.

Will the current 27.x version of PM play any and ALL videos on Youtube? IF not, will it ever?

It does and it will, and it always has. Why do you think Pale Moon would not?
The HTML5 YT player has worked and currently supports (through MSE) all Google's resolutions. Even "3d video" nonsense should work now (although you may have to lie in the useragent about what browser you are because Google never does feature detection).

Does the current version work with Netfix, Hulu, Amazon, and all the major network streaming sites? If not, WILL it soon?

Yes it does. In fact, I use Netflix regularly. Do note that you should install the necessary plugins for this like Flash or Silverlight.
What does NOT work is in-browser DRM (which is actually not that much different from using a plugin, technically speaking, but with less control for the user and more risk for bad code). So if these streaming sites are going to demand html5+DRM to watch their streams, which I think is going to cause major issues for their marketability (e.g. Netflix still has way more silverlight users than html5+drm users) then it will no longer work with Pale Moon.

What other things can Pale Moon NOT do that Chrome and FF do? And "tracking you like a bloodhound all over the 'net" doesn't count, LOL!

In that case, very little. You end up in the realm of experimental technology, gadgets, and debatable functionality for a web browser. I gather the only thing that isn't built by default (but still present in the tree) that would even be worthy of any mention would be WebRTC.

[PCMasterRace]

I have started using Vivaldi. It was pretty awful when it was first released but it's gotten a lot better since then. I still use PaleMoon though and I am hoping that it will get better. I hear MoonChild is thinking of dropping the FF codebase alltogether and going with something entirely new. I don't know how that's possible without losing all the extensions. The extension development scene for PM is sorely lacking currently, so losing those would be a deal breaker for me.

Things Vivaldi needs to fix before I would fully transition to it:
1. Tabs can be displayed in typical Chrome fashion on the top, or on the side. The nice thing about having them on the side is that they shrink down to the size of the tab label and then they push off the screen and you scroll through them, similar to the way that FF and PM work. But this layout is far from ideal and the default tab layout scrunches the tabs into small little "buttons" with no labels when many tabs are opened. For this to truly work for me, I need a scrollable tab layout like FF.
2. The addons on the addon bar cannot be rearranged. Even installing them in the order you want them does not work, it just puts them in some weird arbitrary order. For a browser that bills itself as a clone of Chrome/Chromium with more customizations and more features, this move is a very poor one. Hopefully they will be changing this soon. NOTE: another clone of Chrome/Chromium, UC Browser, also suffers from this.
3. That's it really. Vivaldi has the makings of a great browser, it just needs some polish.

BTW while some HTML 5 stuff still won't work in PM, I can play anything on YouTube just fine. Not sure what issue you are having. Do you have any adblockers or flash block extensions installed? Are you on the latest version of PM?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I hear MoonChild is thinking of dropping the FF codebase alltogether and going with something entirely new. I don't know how that's possible without losing all the extensions. The extension development scene for PM is sorely lacking currently, so losing those would be a deal breaker for me.

Your facts are uncoordinated. Please do some minimal research before posting such claims or god forbid spreading such things.

[GreenGeek]

Off-topic:

2. The addons on the addon bar cannot be rearranged. ... Hopefully they will be changing this soon.

Although this is the wrong place to be discussing Vivaldi, just want to mention Vivaldi has already implemented movable extension buttons. Don't even have to open a customize window like in Mozilla browsers. But I don't think the buttons can be moved to another toolbar which I consider necessary, along with being able to move nav buttons to the right.

[PCMasterRace]

Off-topic:
Yeah I just noticed that in the new Vivaldi update.

[zcyzcy88]

Off-topic:
Don't mention http://html5test.com , you make me remember the troll user: www.com

As the result of http://html5test.com, what Firefox 53 has, but Pale Moon 27 not:
Speech Synthesis
DRM
Gamepad control
WebGL 2
Web Animations API
Service Workers
Push API
Fetch API
WebRTC and related
Webcam
Async and Await (ECMAScript 7)
Classes (ECMAScript 6)
Subresource Integrity


Well, these features are cool but useless.
Read this as the standard answer:

Pale Moon - General Information
Pale Moon is a middle road, cutting away support for particularly old hardware and operating systems to achieve a significant speed and efficiency increase, but not trying to squeeze the last few percent more out of it by limiting the range of systems it will run on even more. Pale Moon aims to deliver above all a stable and smooth browsing experience, and does not intend to or aim for high scoring in synthetic tests, as those are invariably not a good representation of typical use of a web browser in the real world.