With Pale Moon the site looks more or less white:
Thus, with Pale Moon I cannot use the service of DHL to track the current position of a parcel being shipped to my address.
I don't want to use a Google/Microsoft browser for that purpose.
Moderator: trava90
Code: Select all
let language = document?.getElementsByTagName?.('html')?.[0]?.getAttribute?.('lang');
Code: Select all
let language = document?.getElementsByTagName?.('html')?.[0]?.getAttribute?.('lang');
Code: Select all
let language = document.getElementsByTagName('html')[0].getAttribute('lang');
Thank you for this "alternative" Link to the parcel tracking feature of DHL: I would never have had this problem if they would redirect www.dhl.de to that URL.Galaxy wrote: ↑2021-09-30, 14:16Try either of the following two links to track your package using Pale Moon:
https://www.dhl.com/de-en/home.html
https://www.dhl.com/de-de/home.html
I agree that optional chaining is pointless in this case, but you're jumping to conclusions about the code not working in any browser.
Code: Select all
>> document
<- HTMLDocument https://archive.org/
>> document?.getElementsByTagName
<- function getElementsByTagName()
>> document?.getElementsByTagName?.('html')
<- HTMLCollection { 0: html, length: 1 }
>> document?.getElementsByTagName?.('html')?.[0]
<- <html lang="en">
>> document?.getElementsByTagName?.('html')?.[0]?.getAttribute
<- function getAttribute()
>> document?.getElementsByTagName?.('html')?.[0]?.getAttribute?.('lang')
<- "en"
then https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining#faq says
obj?.[expr] and func?.(arg) look ugly. Why not use obj?[expr] and func?(arg) as does <language X>?
We don’t use the obj?[expr] and func?(arg) syntax, because of the difficulty for the parser to efficiently distinguish those forms from the conditional operator, e.g., obj?[expr].filter(fun):0 and func?(x - 2) + 3 :1.
Alternative syntaxes for those two cases each have their own flaws; and deciding which one looks the least bad is mostly a question of personal taste. Here is how we made our choice:
As for <language X>, it has different syntactical constraints than JavaScript because of <some construct not supported by X or working differently in X>.
- pick the best syntax for the obj?.prop case, which is expected to occur most often;
- extend the use of the recognisable ?. sequence of characters to other cases: obj?.[expr], func?.(arg).
However, it’s a thankless endeavor to point out flaws to web designers that they should have seen themselves. In addition, DHL is one of those companies that drives everyone crazy who tries to contact them about individual concerns. It's like wanting to call to an oil tanker from a nutshell.It would still be a good idea to not just use the alternative URLs but actually contact DHL.de
If you don't try, you will have 100% failure rate.
I don't know in what way you convert that post into somehow being about "purity ideals".Quorx wrote: ↑2021-10-05, 08:44In some cases Palemoon has to loosen its purity ideals (see also viewtopic.php?p=220052#p220052) and become more tolerant and robust against the shortcomings of an imperfect world.
I don't know why you think I didn't try. On the contrary, I describe a frustrating experience.If you don't try, you will have 100% failure rate.
Well, this is again an important website (DHL is the big delivery service in Germany) that doesn't work with Palemoon. The analysis says: Well, this page contains bad code that Palemoon doesn't support. Because Palemoon is too good to support rubbish-code. This is certainly quality-conscious, but the user in practice has no benefit of this sophisticated attitude. He needs a browser that can cope with dirty circumstances.I don't know in what way you convert that post into somehow being about "purity ideals".
That is total BS to state. You are implying a mentality that is completely false. You're projecting, please don't.
And we already do a lot of that! But what you are saying here is that if we don't support all the quirks of the Blink engine we are somehow having a high-horse attitude... And that's just simply not true.