downforeveryoneorjustme.com is ignoring 2.53.13

a-865: SyntaxError: expected expression, got keyword 'import'

it fails at the very beginning:

import{n as ve,s as Xe,S as Qe,i as et,a as tt,e as I,c as nt,b as q,g as M,t as D,d as F,f as N,h as C,j as rt,k as st,o as Le,l as it,m as at,p as ot,q as Ee,r as W,u as ct,v as lt,w as ft,x as J,y as ie,z as K,A as ae,B as oe,C as B,D as ce,E as Ve}from"./chunks/index-2b4d216f.js"

wtf is this Javascript soup of fail?

developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/We…aScript/Reference/Statements/import ah, this again

requires FF60

but 2.53.13 is 68, no?

60 i think

started from 56, but this really doesn't mean much by itself because there are a lot of features and other changes from newer versions

I think the UA string has advertised 60 and currently 68. The/A problem here is stupid browser-sniffing. Some sites may rely on the Firefox version number to genuinely see what features can be used, but others will just use this to refuse access because "it's an old version", even if it isn't.

a-865: tomman: I can't get the form to work, but setting dom.moduleScripts.enabled to false gets rid of the SyntaxError (I wonder if it's just failing silently somewhere else)

ah, looking at the code I guess dom.moduleScripts.enabled set to false is disabling the inline javascript that'd, say, set the form action, said javascript uses the import, hence why it'd fail both with this enabled and disabled. I haven't checked what the imported script does, but it's probably setting the form up?

I'm just a victim here, not any kind of script interpreter or writer.

works in Chromium

tomman: did you solve the line-height issue? if a system upgrade was involved my guess would be different fonts, if you have access to a non-updated system see if you can compare the fonts used

tomman module imports are supported. Dynamic module imports are not (yet)

and in this case it's a static import being used to do a dynamic import?

developer.chrome.com/blog/removing-push lolGoogle

removing a Chromeism to replace it with the next shiny Chromeism?

also, how does that even help fighting bloat? Oh wait, it doesn't

njsg: haven't really bothered - if anything, it now matches how Windows renders stuff

maybe some Fontconfig change or something?

"help fighting bloat" "chrome.com" well, I suppose if you define bloat in a convenient way, it gets rid of IE6 and firefox <100?

convenient *for them*, of course

tomman: yeah, possibly a fontconfig setting too. There's also a chance this is, say, a fontconfig setting whose default for Gtk+ applications has changed

Oh, BTW, that site requires WebComponents®, but surprisingly it is readable without them

someone is not getting his/her yearly bonus