kentonline.co.uk - Comments cannot be sorted Topic is solved

[back2themoon]

Visit this page. Scroll down, and near the bottom of the page press "Show Comments".

Try applying a different sorting method (click on "Sort by"). No change, nothing happens.

Couldn't find any specific errors, apart from this:

Error: TypeError: NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource.

[adoxa]

It seems to be tabindex, although I'm not sure if it's that directly or an interaction with other parts of the scripts. Modify HTTP Response filter to remove it.

Code: Select all

[["www.kentonline.co.uk",["/comments.*\\.js$/",["tabindex:\"-1\"",""]]]]

[back2themoon]

Thanks again, adoxa. No idea how you do this magic.

edit: I still think it's best practice to not mark this as solved, since it remains a browser compatibility issue.

[Mæstro]

I think it is fair to mark an incompatibility as resolved if an extension works. Palefill was accepted for incompatibilities due to Pale Moon’s lacking WebComponents support until that was integrated.

[back2themoon]

Not an expert, but I'm fairly confident the fix might work 100% for this website, but might NOT work for another website that shares the same or similar problem. adoxa himself said he's not 100% sure what's causing it.

So, it is not really a "browser fix". Bit of a grey area, really. Moonchild and adoxa's further comments might help.

I guess it depends on whether we look at the "Web Compatibility Support" section as:

A) A way to "patch" specific website issues.
B) A means of identifying and solving (sooner or later) browser issues that trigger the website issues.

I prefer to look at it as B), but perhaps the multitude of issues has realistically turned it into A) in which case, it should be marked as solved.

[Mæstro]

I am sympathetic towards B, in which case I should like to see the web compatibility board merged into browser support, as I seem to recall they had been last decade. My general sympathies tend to prefer lumping to splitting. But your underlining pattern in A complements the notice on this board visible from the homepage:

For support with specific websites

[back2themoon]

It's the age-old issue of who's at fault: The website or the browser? Or both? Or neither?

While Pale Moon updates that would globally fix issues are the ideal outcome, and the amount of website-specific patches is ever-growing, we have these facts:

1. Website-specific patches via extensions are easier and quicker to implement than universal, native browser fixes/updates.
2. A multitude of miscellaneous website patches is still preferable to no patches.

This situation makes the "marked as solved" doubt, unimportant. It'd still be nice if we could more strictly separate here on the Forum, website quirks from missing/not fully implemented browser features. Sounds simple, but I'm sure it isn't.

[Moonchild]

The whole point of making these separate boards to begin with, since they weren't before, was because it was difficult to figure out whether someone had issues with the browser overall or only on a specific website. This split has served us well to keep things organized in a way that one or the other situation would get necessary information to the community quicker to help. E.g. browser support would ask for troubleshooting info to get a quick handle on the configuration of the browser, while web compat would ask for any info about errors thrown by the website.
Lumping those back together would make things harder to sort out again. We are already having trouble with people providing one piece of information, and I'd gather that it would be even harder if we ask for two right off the bat. So, id prefer to keep this separate. If your particular issue with the website this thread was opened for is satisfactorily resolved, then mark it as such.

[back2themoon]

Ok, no worries. I was actually suggesting to further split Web Compatibility into two categories: Website issues (badly coded websites) and Browser issues (unsupported features, browser-side)

Wording can vary of course, but this would over-complicate things. Also, someone would always have to authoritatively decide what belongs where.

[Mæstro]

I thank Moonchild for weighing in, and now that the purpose in keeping separate boards has been explained, see no reason to recombine them. Poorly coded websites known as such might belong as a subject in different boards, depending on the precise purpose. When it has been proper to consult with the webmaster about it, like with Cloudflare, it has been a regular subject in the general board. I have posted there also for our own support when I knew the site was badly designed, namely to disable automatic Flash emulation in the Internet Archive and Newgrounds. If, as seems often to happen, Chrome misbehaviour has become a de facto standard, the question of whether to mimic it might be relevant to browser development. If we just wish to bemoan the Worldwide Web falling into tatters, I think that belongs in the off-topic board.