Talk about code development, features, specific bugs, enhancements, patches, and similar things.
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific bugs, git, the repositories, etc.
This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.
Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
-
Pelican
- Fanatic

- Posts: 235
- Joined: 2018-02-23, 06:51
Unread post
by Pelican » 2025-01-21, 01:46
Lately Facebook has been popping a message about "old version no longer supported"...
This not only applies to Pale Moon but also the latest Firefox Dev version which is also version 102.0. Normal Firefox is now version 128.0.
If PM is up to date with ES6 and CSS3 will incrementing Firefox version number work in all of these cases?
-
Moonchild
- Pale Moon guru

- Posts: 36976
- Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
- Location: Motala, SE
-
Contact:
Unread post
by Moonchild » 2025-01-21, 07:26
You can test this by setting
general.useragent.compatMode.version to whichever Firefox version you want it to pretend to be.
Pelican wrote: ↑2025-01-21, 01:46
If PM is up to date with ES6 and CSS3 will incrementing Firefox version number work in all of these cases?
Depends.
ES6 is old by now. We support
a ton more than just that, but if it doesn't exactly match what the website wants of a specific version number, then it may fail anyway. If they support "Firefox 128" then if you pretend to be it, it will likely expect
exactly the feature set of Firefox 128, nothing more and nothing less. That's not possible for us because we aren't Firefox 128 and our feature set is different. The compatibility version has always been (very) conservative because site scripting tends to be slightly more compatible when it thinks the browser is an older Firefox version than a newer Firefox version (due to the constant chasing of new draft shinies if being told it's a newer Firefox).
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." - Albert Einstein
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
-
Pelican
- Fanatic

- Posts: 235
- Joined: 2018-02-23, 06:51
Unread post
by Pelican » 2025-01-22, 03:25
Moonchild wrote: ↑2025-01-21, 07:26
general.useragent.compatMode.version
Changing from 102.0 to 120.0 made no difference. Also tried changing to 128.0 and still no difference... your browser is no longer supported.
ErrorUtils caught an error: wasm validation error
-
Moonchild
- Pale Moon guru

- Posts: 36976
- Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
- Location: Motala, SE
-
Contact:
Unread post
by Moonchild » 2025-01-22, 16:01
A few points:
- There is no reason for Facebook to use wasm in its web interface, which is explicitly for high-performance implementations of scripting/cross-compiled applications. Unless you are doing things like html games or cryptomining in the browser, you simply don't need it.
- Our implementation of wasm isn't at parity with other browsers, so if they test for specific "full implementation as in Chrome" of it, that will fail and they are then refusing access.
I don't see a way to easily remedy this problem that was entirely created by Facebook.
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." - Albert Einstein
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite