{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiazirl6mhx4mbzfz22nqkvrudut3ms5igwd276xzmsunqi6dktkyy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mluv555yci22"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33437&p=274046#p274046",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-15T06:26:32.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "**Off-topic:**\nGoogle. It’s always google’s fault. And before that, it was all microsoft’s fault (ie, I remember you!). And opera, and firefox too, because they implemented web elements _differently_ (remember the days when, instead of one version of a website, you were effectively creating three, because of ie5, ie6, ie7, opera and firefox?). And then there’s the w3c, which screwed up standardisation, resulting in the creation of the whatwg.\nAnd if you talk to modern developers, it's Safari's fault, right?\nLet’s just admit that web development has _always_ been a mess and leave it at that...\n\n\n\n\n> I agree with what you say, but there is a point in not implementing stuff (ignoring JS) that it does get kind of silly.\n\nI think there’s a misunderstanding here. I've been following PM development for quite some time, and I remember literally a few features that they refused to implement on principle (and some of them were eventually added). Usually, it’s just a matter of catching up with other browsers and prioritizing. Something along the lines of \"yes, we don’t support some css, so websites look a bit off – but at least they render somehow, whereas the lack of <insert js name> breaks half the web to smithereens\" and \"ahhh, a new standard again!..\"\nOh, right, and the grumbling on the forum. _Always_ grumbling on the forum))\nAnd yes, this partly explains why PM is slower than other browsers. When choosing between \"performance optimization\" and \"support for new js/css/dom\", the latter usually wins.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Browser Support • Re: Why is Pale Moon so slow?",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-15T06:26:32.000Z"
}