Degrading web compatibility, Pale Moon 32 -> 34

[ferdnyc]

I've been using Pale Moon (Linux/gtk3, from the official downloads) for a while now, since I think version 28 or 29, mostly to retain compatibility with the legacy ScrapbookX extension for certain tasks I do online. I dutifully upgrade whenever a message pops up to do so, so I updated to 34.3.1 fairly recently.

Over the past few months, I've noticed increasing issues with at least one site I frequent. At first, navigation started getting weird: Every time I clicked a link, I'd end up at the root page for the site, (with the link I clicked still showing in the URLbar), and I'd have to reload to actually see that page. That went on for a while, then recently I stopped being able to load pages at that site entirely ­-- any link I followed, URL I typed in, etc. would end up at the root page of the site, and I couldn't reach anywhere else.

Here's the thing: I can't share the site. I'm sorry, but it's just not an option. That's why I'm not posting this in the Website forum, and that's why I'm not posting this as a bug report. I UNDERSTAND that without a link, this is a useless report. I UNDERSTAND that there's nothing anyone can do to help with the issues I'm seeing, without having access to the site in question. Again, I apologize for that, and it's exactly why I'm posting in General Discussion instead of any other part of the forum.

The reason I'm posting this (admittedly unactionable) report at all isn't to get help with that site. It's to report that, as far as I can tell, the issues AREN'T actually the fault of the site's code. (Or at least, they aren't the fault of any changes to the site's code.)

I know because, today I experimentally downgraded to Pale Moon 32.5.2 (creating a separate profile to avoid corruption), and all of those problems went away. The site once again operates perfectly under 32.5.2, with none of the same issues that had been creeping in over the past weeks/months.

[User's exhortations to other users to downgrade their browsers to older versions deleted by moderator].

[Moonchild]

I can't share the site.

as far as I can tell, the issues AREN'T actually the fault of the site's code.

If you know it's not the site's code, then you should be familiar enough with the site's code to make a more educated guess as to what is the problem.
Even if you can't share the site itself, you could share any console messages that might help but that's also not done.
I'm not sure what you expect any of us to do with this information. Not only is it not actionable, it's not even verifiable!

Over the past few months, I've noticed increasing issues with at least one site I frequent.

The site once again operates perfectly under 32.5.2, with none of the same issues that had been creeping in over the past weeks/months.

So is it weeks (meaning a regression between 34.3.0 and 34.3.1) or months (earlier 34 (like .1 or .2) to current)? v32.5.2 is much older than your reported time frame (December 2023, years ago, not months). Since then, our web compatibility has made leaps and bounds forward, as anyone can attest to (and you can check in our release notes).

If you want us to do anything aside from shrug and move on, then you must give us something to go on; if you don't want to share the site in public, you can do so in private after confirming someone is willing to look into it.

As to why improvement in the browser can on rare occasions lead to regression in web compatibility: If a website has fallback code, it can take a fallback path if certain features aren't present in the browser (or based on useragent). If those features become implemented it can then make assumptions about which feature set to try and use. However, forwarding to the root URL is strange in that case (but not impossible). Without more information, we simply can't do anything with your post.

[moonbat]

mostly to retain compatibility with the legacy ScrapbookX extension for certain tasks I do online.

ScrapbookX works fine with every version, I'm using it as I speak on the latest one. This isn't a ChromeZilla browser that breaks extensions after every other release.

I'm sorry, but it's just not an option. That's why I'm not posting this in the Website forum, and that's why I'm not posting this as a bug report. I UNDERSTAND that without a link, this is a useless report.

And still you choose to waste our time.

The reason I'm posting this (admittedly unactionable) report at all isn't to get help with that site. It's to report that, as far as I can tell, the issues AREN'T actually the fault of the site's code. (Or at least, they aren't the fault of any changes to the site's code.)

So WTF are we supposed to do with this information? Do you think you're the first person to report a regression after a new browser version, or that those regressions never get subsequently fixed? If you don't give a shit about doing the diligence of providing the link to the site, let alone troubleshooting info how is anyone to guess where the failure might be, let alone fix it?

Just go head to r/firefox and post your rant about how oLd aNd iNSeCuRe this browser is, along with the rest of the Mozilla cultists there.

[athenian200]

I mean, going all the way back to 32.5.2 is terrible regression testing if you don't tell us what the version in-between did at least... I'm not really sure how this helps us?