customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-19, 17:17

customElements [Google WebComponents] are being used in an ever-increasing number of websites.

Please, is there a plan by the new developer of Basilisk to begin supporting them in that browser ?

If so, then how soon ?

Thanks.

User avatar
Nigaikaze
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2014-02-02, 22:15
Location: Chicagoland

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by Nigaikaze » 2022-10-19, 17:53

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 17:17
is there a plan by the new developer of Basilisk to begin supporting them in that browser ?
This is not something that would be supported specifically by Basilisk or by Pale Moon; this is something that would be supported by UXP, the underlying platform that both of those applications use.

As FranklinDM pointed out to you in your other thread, this is currently being tracked by issue #1344 (UXP).
Nichi nichi kore ko jitsu = Every day is a good day.

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-19, 18:25

Nigaikaze wrote:
2022-10-19, 17:53
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 17:17
is there a plan by the new developer of Basilisk to begin supporting them in that browser ?
This is not something that would be supported specifically by Basilisk or by Pale Moon; this is something that would be supported by UXP, the underlying platform that both of those applications use.

As FranklinDM pointed out to you in your other thread, this is currently being tracked by issue #1344 (UXP).
Thanks for your reply and the info.

Before I launched this thread, I had already read FranklinDM's post and linked page, and was not very encouraged, because the most recent entry in that log is about a year old, on a topic which began about 3 years ago.

During the last year alone, several sites which are important to me have gone down the drain which we can call customElements, and if I have noticed several, then surely there have been plenty of other sites which matter to other folks, which have suffered the same fate.

Whose cage should a person be rattling about this ?

Websites are not going to halt and reverse the implementation of that code simply because MCP and associates have not been supporting it.

vannilla
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2181
Joined: 2018-05-05, 13:29

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by vannilla » 2022-10-19, 19:48

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 18:25
Whose cage should a person be rattling about this ?
Knocking on frameworks' doors is actually the best choice, as most of the times websites end up with things like WebComponents or non-standard regex groups because of updates in the underlying framework, not because they really want or need them.

Unfortunately, Angular is managed by Google, the same entity that came up with this; React is by Facebook, and as a competitor to Google they'd rather have feature parity over ensuring compatibility over a greater range of browsers, especially if they follow "marketshare"; lastly, more "community-driven" projects will eventually end up with the same featureset as developers compare them with other frameworks.

User avatar
Basilisk-Dev
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 315
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41
Location: Chamber of Secrets
Contact:

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2022-10-20, 12:41

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 17:17
customElements [Google WebComponents] are being used in an ever-increasing number of websites.

Please, is there a plan by the new developer of Basilisk to begin supporting them in that browser ?
Thank you for reminding me I need to get an FAQ up on the Basilisk website with this question as one of the frequently asked questions.

As stated above, this is more of a UXP question than a browser specific question. We'd love to have full support for WebComponents but this is an extremely difficult feature to implement for multiple reasons.

In the meantime, you can install the Palefill addon which will fix multiple sites that require WebComponents (some examples being GitHub, Duolingo, and some Microsoft sites), but keep in mind that this addon is more of a hack than a proper fix and there's always the possibility those pages can break even with the addon installed in the future.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-20, 15:09

vannilla wrote:
2022-10-19, 19:48
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 18:25
Whose cage should a person be rattling about this ?
Knocking on frameworks' doors is actually the best choice, as most of the times websites end up with things like WebComponents or non-standard regex groups because of updates in the underlying framework, not because they really want or need them.

Unfortunately, Angular is managed by Google, the same entity that came up with this; React is by Facebook, and as a competitor to Google they'd rather have feature parity over ensuring compatibility over a greater range of browsers, especially if they follow "marketshare"; lastly, more "community-driven" projects will eventually end up with the same featureset as developers compare them with other frameworks.
So let me get this straight.

Are you saying that lobbying Google [for example] will get them to change/rollback their framework changes to remove their new incompatible code segments, sooner than lobbying browser authors and authors of the UXP platform to make updates ?

Then, websites will hopefully indirectly inherit the rollbacks from the framework authors, and will become once again compatible with Mozilla legacy UXP based browsers, and that this will happen sooner than updating the browsers and/or the UXP platform to support the new code ?

My instinct is that convincing the browser and/or UXP authors [to change/update] will be the shorter path to getting incompatible sites to once again work on UXP-based browsers.

That's why I recently began this and another thread at the Pale Moon forum, and have participated in a few others here.

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-20, 15:13

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-10-20, 12:41
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 17:17
customElements [Google WebComponents] are being used in an ever-increasing number of websites.

Please, is there a plan by the new developer of Basilisk to begin supporting them in that browser ?
Thank you for reminding me I need to get an FAQ up on the Basilisk website with this question as one of the frequently asked questions.

As stated above, this is more of a UXP question than a browser specific question. We'd love to have full support for WebComponents but this is an extremely difficult feature to implement for multiple reasons.

In the meantime, you can install the Palefill addon which will fix multiple sites that require WebComponents (some examples being GitHub, Duolingo, and some Microsoft sites), but keep in mind that this addon is more of a hack than a proper fix and there's always the possibility those pages can break even with the addon installed in the future.
Thanks for your reply and the link.

I had heard of PaleFill, but not yet tried it.

I'll do so, and will report back whether it fixes any sites, and which ones.

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 688
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-10-20, 15:31

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-20, 15:13
Thanks for your reply and the link.

I had heard of PaleFill, but not yet tried it.

I'll do so, and will report back whether it fixes any sites, and which ones.
There is also limited support for webcomponents built in to Pale Moon (and possibly Basilisk, but I don't have it installed and am not sure). In about:config, toggle dom.webcomponents.enabled from "False" to "True". Try this on a site-by-site basis, as this webcomponents implementation will break some websites, but it does work well on some others.

User avatar
Basilisk-Dev
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 315
Joined: 2022-03-23, 16:41
Location: Chamber of Secrets
Contact:

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by Basilisk-Dev » 2022-10-20, 17:11

andyprough wrote:
2022-10-20, 15:31
There is also limited support for webcomponents built in to Pale Moon (and possibly Basilisk, but I don't have it installed and am not sure). In about:config, toggle dom.webcomponents.enabled from "False" to "True". Try this on a site-by-site basis, as this webcomponents implementation will break some websites, but it does work well on some others.
Basilisk does support this. Every application built on top of UXP would have this code in place.
Basilisk Project Owner

viewtopic.php?f=61&p=230756

vannilla
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2181
Joined: 2018-05-05, 13:29

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by vannilla » 2022-10-21, 07:31

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-20, 15:09
Are you saying that lobbying Google [for example] will get them to change/rollback their framework changes to remove their new incompatible code segments, sooner than lobbying browser authors and authors of the UXP platform to make updates ?

Then, websites will hopefully indirectly inherit the rollbacks from the framework authors, and will become once again compatible with Mozilla legacy UXP based browsers, and that this will happen sooner than updating the browsers and/or the UXP platform to support the new code ?
Yes and no. Let me try to explain.
Undoubtly we have reached a point where UXP needs to implement WebComponents and other (mostly Google) technologies that have been spearheaded into web browsers, so that's going to happen regardless of "lobbying" or any other activity.
However, the majority of the websites out there don't need many of these technologies and are using them merely because they are being forced to.
The faster solution is telling websites to pay attention to what frameworks force on unsuspecting users; the not-very-fast solution would be helping Moonchild and the UXP team to add support for these techs; the final but nearly impossible solution would be getting frameworks to be more judicious about what they use under the hood.

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1481
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by athenian200 » 2022-10-21, 11:16

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 18:25
Whose cage should a person be rattling about this ?
It's technically a platform issue, and I am one of the people that's been doing work on it. If this were something we could "just support" with a few weeks of focused effort, I can assure you we would have already done so ages ago.

I mean, it's a huge task that is not happening very fast, and we've known it was going to be a problem for a while now. The fact is, it's too big a job for us to do in a reasonable timeframe with our skills alone, and we aren't able to rebase on newer Mozilla code. So it's very likely that this will be an increasingly frustrating experience for some time to come. I mean, let me put it this way... you might as well get used to using something else if you're in a hurry and need things to "just work." We're in a position where we can't offer that level of service anymore.

https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reck ... scope.html

Consider this article while trying to understand this from our perspective. Anyway, the only thing that could really help us do it faster is to have more people helping us out who understand how to do the work required, but we've had trouble attracting people to contribute to UXP.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-21, 16:55

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-20, 15:13
Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-10-20, 12:41
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 17:17
customElements [Google WebComponents] are being used in an ever-increasing number of websites.

Please, is there a plan by the new developer of Basilisk to begin supporting them in that browser ?
Thank you for reminding me I need to get an FAQ up on the Basilisk website with this question as one of the frequently asked questions.

As stated above, this is more of a UXP question than a browser specific question. We'd love to have full support for WebComponents but this is an extremely difficult feature to implement for multiple reasons.

In the meantime, you can install the Palefill addon which will fix multiple sites that require WebComponents (some examples being GitHub, Duolingo, and some Microsoft sites), but keep in mind that this addon is more of a hack than a proper fix and there's always the possibility those pages can break even with the addon installed in the future.
Thanks for your reply and the link.

I had heard of PaleFill, but not yet tried it.

I'll do so, and will report back whether it fixes any sites, and which ones.
OK, PaleFill did not help the most recent 3 sites with which I have been having problems.

This either means that some or all of those sites do not use the portions of WebComponents/customElements for which PaleFill currently compensates [which makes sense as I do not see any of them on this list https://github.com/martok/palefill/blob ... n-rules.js ],

OR, that the problem being encountered at at least some of those sites is for a different reason of incompatibility.

One of the other sites on that list has also not been working completely properly for me last time I wanted to use it [Google Drive], and I will try again there with PaleFill added when I next get a chance.

Thanks for the idea.

We need to try any and all suggestions as they are presented.

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-21, 17:01

Basilisk-Dev wrote:
2022-10-20, 17:11
andyprough wrote:
2022-10-20, 15:31
There is also limited support for webcomponents built in to Pale Moon (and possibly Basilisk, but I don't have it installed and am not sure).

In about:config, toggle dom.webcomponents.enabled from "False" to "True".

Try this on a site-by-site basis, as this webcomponents implementation will break some websites, but it does work well on some others.
Basilisk does support this. Every application built on top of UXP would have this code in place.
Thanks.

I will try this too, ASAP.

Can it be invoked on a per site basis, like a UA override string can be, or is it a global parameter which when toggled, simultaneously has varying effects on various sites ?
Last edited by davesnothere on 2022-10-21, 19:28, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-21, 17:20

vannilla wrote:
2022-10-21, 07:31
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-20, 15:09
Are you saying that lobbying Google [for example] will get them to change/rollback their framework changes to remove their new incompatible code segments, sooner than lobbying browser authors and authors of the UXP platform to make updates ?

Then, websites will hopefully indirectly inherit the rollbacks from the framework authors, and will become once again compatible with Mozilla legacy UXP based browsers, and that this will happen sooner than updating the browsers and/or the UXP platform to support the new code ?
Yes and no. Let me try to explain.

Undoubtedly we have reached a point where UXP needs to implement WebComponents and other (mostly Google) technologies that have been spearheaded into web browsers, so that's going to happen regardless of "lobbying" or any other activity.

However, the majority of the websites out there don't need many of these technologies and are using them merely because they are being forced to.

[1] The faster solution is telling websites to pay attention to what frameworks force on unsuspecting users;

[2] The not-very-fast solution would be helping Moonchild and the UXP team to add support for these techs;

[3] The final but nearly impossible solution would be getting frameworks to be more judicious about what they use under the hood.
Thanks for the perspective and breakdown of the situation.

So it seems that there would be 3 ways to approach 3 different [groups of] entities about this.

And in the meantime, a short term [hopefully temporary] solution is to add another browser which CAN deal with the sites in question.

That said, even your suggested 'faster' solution does not seem to have much hope to accomplish, in my opinion, as the entities which have implemented WebComponents/customElements [or any other new code blocks] into their updated websites, knowingly or otherwise, are [in my most recent examples] either merchants, banks, or eMail providers.

Two are mentioned in another recent thread of mine : viewtopic.php?f=65&t=28987

The other is GMX, which was already being discussed here : viewtopic.php?f=65&t=28855

My sense is that none of them care about users of browsers such as Pale Moon or Basilisk, which are not the top mainstream choices, and in that regard, my inclination would be to re-rank your 3 suggestions by swapping [1] and [2].

That is why I posted here at the Pale Moon forum, hoping to encourage your [2] solution, as difficult as it may already be proving to be.
Last edited by davesnothere on 2022-10-21, 17:32, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-21, 17:25

athenian200 wrote:
2022-10-21, 11:16
davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-19, 18:25
Whose cage should a person be rattling about this ?
It's technically a platform issue, and I am one of the people that's been doing work on it. If this were something we could "just support" with a few weeks of focused effort, I can assure you we would have already done so ages ago.

I mean, it's a huge task that is not happening very fast, and we've known it was going to be a problem for a while now. The fact is, it's too big a job for us to do in a reasonable timeframe with our skills alone, and we aren't able to rebase on newer Mozilla code. So it's very likely that this will be an increasingly frustrating experience for some time to come. I mean, let me put it this way... you might as well get used to using something else if you're in a hurry and need things to "just work." We're in a position where we can't offer that level of service anymore.

https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reck ... scope.html

Consider this article while trying to understand this from our perspective. Anyway, the only thing that could really help us do it faster is to have more people helping us out who understand how to do the work required, but we've had trouble attracting people to contribute to UXP.
Thank you for your service in that regard.

And I wish that I had sufficient/recent coding experience to be of help in getting this task done.

I agree with you that if had been relatively easy to fix, then it would have likely already been fixed - maybe 3 years back.

And yes, I have been forced to use another browser to work around certain sites which have recently updated and broken my Pale Moon and Basilisk [and their respective forks], whether it be because of implementation of customElements/WebComponents, or due to the inclusion of some other new code block.

The alternate browser's UI is different, does not appeal to me, and it does not support UXP-based extensions, so my other interim side-objective will be to find replacement Webex extensions, and tweaks, to hopefully make it look and behave more like Pale Moon and/or Basilisk.

That is a work in progress, and to go into much more detail here would be off topic. ;)

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1481
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by athenian200 » 2022-10-21, 19:21

davesnothere wrote:
2022-10-21, 17:25
And yes, I have been forced to use another browser to work around certain sites which have recently updated and broken my Pale Moon and Basilisk [and their respective forks], whether it be because of implementation of customElements/WebComponents, or due to the inclusion of some other new code block.
That is pretty much what we are all doing at this point. I would say over half the sites I use do not work in UXP. I'm finding myself increasingly only firing up Pale Moon to do testing and work on UXP rather than actually using it as a browser every day. It increasingly feels more like I am using it trying to build an alternative to Chromium some day rather than like I have a working alternative in hand. But having been on the side of trying to fix this stuff, I also get why we're stuck in this position and see that the blame lies with the standards organizations being kinda corrupt and web developers depending on automatically updated frameworks that are quick to implement all the latest bells and whistles without the site owners planning anything on their end.

I think the intention is precisely the situation we are in, that eventually there will only be one viable web engine, Chromium. WebKit and Firefox are also falling behind, just not as fast, but the gap is getting wider.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 688
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-10-21, 19:40

athenian200 wrote:
2022-10-21, 19:21
That is pretty much what we are all doing at this point. I would say over half the sites I use do not work in UXP. I'm finding myself increasingly only firing up Pale Moon to do testing and work on UXP rather than actually using it as a browser every day. It increasingly feels more like I am using it trying to build an alternative to Chromium some day rather than like I have a working alternative in hand.
You can't say "we are all" using other browsers, at least not all the time. I often go weeks at a time with Pale Moon as my only browser. It's going to depend greatly on the sites that you frequent or that you use for work or study. The only site I use where Pale Moon simply will not work right now is Tutanota webmail where you can't read emails, but I hardly ever use that because I have no friends that use Tutanota, and I don't know anyone who wants to open a browser and go to a secure site just to read a Tutanota email from me. There's one other site I use for work that opens PDF images in its own proprietary viewer, and Pale Moon bogs down after using it for a half hour or so, whereas Librewolf can keep going for over an hour before it bogs down. But I could probably mess around with Pale Moon's memory settings and get that to work better if I would take the time. Other than that, all of my streaming media sites and blogs and cloud services and so forth work fine with Pale Moon. In fact, I've set up Pale Moon profiles for all my different cloud services because Pale Moon handles them so much better and with such lower memory usage than any other browser. It helps a lot that I don't use anything owned by Google or Facebook.

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1481
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by athenian200 » 2022-10-21, 20:15

andyprough wrote:
2022-10-21, 19:40
In fact, I've set up Pale Moon profiles for all my different cloud services because Pale Moon handles them so much better and with such lower memory usage than any other browser.
That I would agree with, there are websites out there that work much better in Pale Moon than in most modern browsers. In general, I think part of it is just that I have always used multiple browsers to maximize the number of sites I can access, even as far back as the 1990s when it was IE vs Netscape. And to a large extent I'm still in that pattern of always trying to use the browser that provides the best experience on a given site... there are a lot of times when that is Pale Moon, but unfortunately also a lot of times when it's not.

I think maybe I just have never had enough of a "libre software" mentality surrounding websites that don't work in Pale Moon, because I'm sure if you go out of your way to avoid heavier websites and stick to things that have higher compatibility by their nature, or use dedicated applications to avoid needing the website, the need for another browser goes down a lot. What I should probably talk about more is the ways in which Chromium/Firefox are broken for a lot of functionality I still rely on that I increasingly have to lean on Pale Moon for. So it's like I have a bunch of stuff I use that only works right in PM, and a bunch of other stuff I use that only works right in Chromium, which means I have to switch a lot.

Anyway, even though I don't express my frustration as much as the users do, there is probably no one more inwardly frustrated with the situation of us still not having WebComponents than me. I realized it was going to be a major issue years ago, and saw it as connected with the reason why the original legacy Edge failed and Microsoft gave up and rebased it on Chromium. And even in spite of joining the development team and studying things out, I feel like the spec is very complicated and it's very hard to make sense of what we have and don't have, and our code is also very complicated and not well documented in the places we need it to be. It's more that I've gone numb to the frustration because I've been fighting it for so long and just having to watch this happen when I already knew it would as far back as 2018. And it seems like whenever I implement a piece of it, it just passes reftests and doesn't work on real websites, and even then we have to keep it behind a pref because until it's somewhat complete it will break more sites than it fixes. It feels like we're working blind, and it drives me nuts.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
andyprough
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 688
Joined: 2020-05-31, 04:33

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by andyprough » 2022-10-21, 22:02

athenian200 wrote:
2022-10-21, 20:15
Anyway, even though I don't express my frustration as much as the users do, there is probably no one more inwardly frustrated with the situation of us still not having WebComponents than me. I realized it was going to be a major issue years ago, and saw it as connected with the reason why the original legacy Edge failed and Microsoft gave up and rebased it on Chromium. And even in spite of joining the development team and studying things out, I feel like the spec is very complicated and it's very hard to make sense of what we have and don't have, and our code is also very complicated and not well documented in the places we need it to be. It's more that I've gone numb to the frustration because I've been fighting it for so long and just having to watch this happen when I already knew it would as far back as 2018. And it seems like whenever I implement a piece of it, it just passes reftests and doesn't work on real websites, and even then we have to keep it behind a pref because until it's somewhat complete it will break more sites than it fixes. It feels like we're working blind, and it drives me nuts.
Well, I can tell you that whatever you are doing is clearly working. A year and a half ago there's no way I could say that I can spend weeks at a time using nothing but Pale Moon, and that was not because I was curating my list of visited sites down to just a few lightweight sites. The browser has simply gotten better and better and better especially since version 29 in early 2021. It is truly a major browser (again) at this point, and if you look at the sites that users complain about, those same sites nearly always have numerous complaints on the Chrome, Firefox and Edge complaint/support/forum sites.
So it's like I have a bunch of stuff I use that only works right in PM, and a bunch of other stuff I use that only works right in Chromium, which means I have to switch a lot.
That makes sense.

User avatar
davesnothere
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 21
Joined: 2019-05-01, 12:23

Re: customElements [Google WebComponents] support

Unread post by davesnothere » 2022-10-22, 00:53

andyprough wrote:
2022-10-21, 22:02
....if you look at the sites that users complain about, those same sites nearly always have numerous complaints on the Chrome, Firefox and Edge complaint/support/forum sites....
I'm not sure which sites those are, and I do not use Chrome, Edge, nor the newest FireFox.

Being from Canada, some of the websites which I visit are unique to Canadians.

This includes our banks, and many of our merchants, so I expect that most of you reading my posts may not have even heard of them, let alone used their sites.

That said, two of the three sites with which I mentioned in an earlier post today [which are giving me problems] are in those two categories.

The other is GMX, where I like using their WebMail at least some of the time, alternating with the Thunderbird app.

I spend very little time on social media sites, and in what time I HAVE spent this year, have not run into any glaring cases of browser incompatibility.

I will mention briefly that the browser which has become a workaround for 2 of my 3 most recent problem sites is a fork of FireFox 68 [and I think that this range of FF has Mozilla's Quantum engine].

I do not know the fine details about what part of its coding makes it work, and Pale Moon and Basilisk not work [for those sites], but its UI is less than optimal and not very adjustable, after the flexibility which I have enjoyed for quite a few years with Pale Moon and Basilisk [and legacy FireFox], and of course I have had to seek alternate add-ons to replace the UXP ones which it has rejected, but I'm getting by.

It looks like my hope of an easy fix has so far been an exercise in failed optimism. :coffee:

Locked