Website missing content

[Pallid Planetoid]

Can we say it is recommended to set this pref to the non-default "true"?

Well, looking up for that about:config entry says that this option can create a big number of additional warnings/errors which are hidden when it is set to disabled.

Which can of course impact the responsiveness of the browser in a negative way if you hit a page which creates myriads of warnings that way

One would think, that is connecting the dots, that if javascript.options.strict set to "true" works for a site then for sure javascript.options.strict set to "false" would be inclined (expected) to work as well for the same site (keeping in mind the expectation with respect to what NOT "strict" should mean) ... and in fact "false" for "strick" JavaScript would presumably work for even more sites that would otherwise not work if javascript.options.strict were set to "true" . .... yet "false" for "strict" JavaScript causes the website in this case to break and "true" for "strict" JavaScript results in the website working.... ... who would think? ... but then who's to say using "deductive logic" will always produce the expected result.

[Goodydino]

It doesn't matter if the website isn't coded 'correctly'. It matters that the sites don't display correctly to the user.
Other browsers display https://my.emsisoft.com/ correctly.

Oh, and vital has more than one meaning.

That is not my experience. Only one of the 4 browsers I have displays the page with the signon box. The other 3 have only an orange oval with dots in it at the lower right corner. Opera is one of the 3 and it is up to date. I tried allowing cookies but that was no help. If I click the orange thing, and type something in the resulting box, I am asked to enter my email address.

[Rich3w]

Thank you jars_ , indeed toggling that option makes the website work. Anxiously waiting for Rich3w's new comment.

Changing the javascript.options.strict option will probably break other sites or give too many warnings. Basilisk works correctly without the toggle. Tweaking settings to make sites work isn't good!

"Upgrade" - Pretty sure there will be no upgrade to a recent Firefox code base - as Firefox 57 and beyond destroying everything what makes Pale Moon - well... basically Pale Moon.

So, UXP is the last fork - and from here on, features will be back-ported and rewritten to make them work in the Pale Moon code.

So, get your facts straight and do not demand unreasonable things

I mean the newer Firefox code that Basilisk came from. Not Firefox 57 granted, but a much more recent Firefox version than Pal Moon's. More recent code and ECMAscript support. I keep saying more recent is a benefit because it can better support an ever evolving web.

... Only one of the 4 browsers I have displays the page with the signon box. The other 3 have only an orange oval with dots in it at the lower right corner. Opera is one of the 3 and it is up to date. ...

Basilisk, Chrome and Firefox all display the page correctly. Opera also works fine on a clean portable install (I got it to test). Looks something is broken your end.

[back2themoon]

https://www.purposefairy.com/71514/the- ... -say-more/

[Rich3w]

https://www.purposefairy.com/71514/the- ... -say-more/

A typical non-sense reply when someone disagrees but can't put valid arguments themselves.
What exactly do you disagree with in my latest reply? The fact it criticises something and you don't agree?

[back2themoon]

The sole purpose of this thread was to confirm an issue with https://my.emsisoft.com/. You keep talking and yet failed to provide even that. Carefully study the link you dismissed and someone please lock this.

[Rich3w]

You keep talking and yet failed to provide even that ... someone please lock this.

Yep, let's try to silence any suggestion that Pale Moon may at fault here.

I'd start a discussion thread but people would just say don't use Pale Moon. Rather a catch 22 for anyone wanting a genuine discussion.

[lyceus]

You keep talking and yet failed to provide even that ... someone please lock this.

Yep, let's try to silence any suggestion that Pale Moon may at fault here.

I'd start a discussion thread but people would just say don't use Pale Moon. Rather a catch 22 for anyone wanting a genuine discussion.

I understand that you are angry to see that more and more websites break here and there. In some cases yes *it is a bug in Pale Moon*, in other cases is the *configuration of the user* (like not install codecs for see videos) and in other *are the companies that broke the websites for use only in one browser* (Today Chrome, in the past was MSIE).

There is a risk to use Pale Moon as is a small browser and hence it will never work 100% as the others because: We are small group of volunteers and coders; The coders are often guessing how to put functionality back to code made for Australis and Web Extensions; and the same time adding stuff that is added in other browsers. Even with Basilisk as the future project there are many rocks in the path now.

If you use Pale Moon you are expected to made to some tweaks here and there as is the price for not be a number more in the Google's Global Ad machine. And you don't even want to do that. So this is not a genuine discussion nor a catch22, you want (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction but we are not The Rolling Stones.

So since none of the fixes proposed is of your satisfaction and you don't seem to understand the situation here. I think I will lock this "topic" that is just another flamewar mill and yes you won a warning.