{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiexchlz7r7hknk6eate37ecihes4md2afexxb5mnnr3es65gjatpq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnfeyvhms4e2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33475&p=275150#p275150",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-03T13:05:06.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "Thanks for the feedback. I agree that there probably isn't any universal tweak that can magically solve every compatibility issue, especially when the root cause is often site-specific JS or CSS assumptions.\nTo clarify, I wasn't reporting a problem with a particular site. My point was more that I was pleasantly surprised to find that some relatively recent professional platforms still remain usable with Pale Moon/UXP. For example, while doing some testing on [Link removed by moderator], I found that the site was generally functional and rendered reasonably well despite being a modern service platform. That's the kind of experience I was referring to.\nIt's also interesting to hear that governmental websites in some regions show similar behavior. I suspect many sites that focus on delivering information and services rather than chasing the latest front-end trends may end up being more resilient across different engines.\nI'll keep the web compatibility section in mind if I run into specific issues. For now, I was mainly curious whether other users had noticed similar examples of modern sites that remain surprisingly usable on UXP-based browsers.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "General Discussion • Re: Pale Moon and compatibility with recent professional service websites",
  "updatedAt": "2026-06-03T13:05:06.000Z"
}