This isn't the first time the topic of browser monoculture has been brought up. Why does it matter that it was Pale Moon that brought it up this time? If I or anyone else would have written the post instead of them, would then people focus on the issue instead of on who brought it up?

> It takes away from the point when it's untrue

What exactly are you saying is untrue? Can you quote the part?

There are comments[1] right in this same thread that confirm Pale Moon's statements about the inability to save or archive pages.

> Web Components is a standard. Multiple implementations exist.

Are you sure it's not Google that's controlling what's to become "standard" and Firefox that chases after them? And I say Firefox specifically, because, besides Safari, they seem to be the only other implementation on the market. Edge uses Chrome's engine. Indeed, with Chrome's 64% in market share[2], anything they do becomes "standard" automatically. With Firefox's 4.5%, I don't think they can do anything but chase after the Chrome guys to wherever they decide to take the web.

Isn't the point of a standard to help foster a rich ecosystem of diverse, interoperable implementations? I feel that a standard that evolves too fast (as made possible by an implementation monoculture) fails at fostering one.

This is what I believe Pale Moon is getting at when they say:

> The more additional "features" are tacked on to these components, the less likely it is for non-Google clients to be able to display sites in full or properly.

It gets harder and harder to make a new web engine from scratch. It's a step backwards from gaining a more diverse browser ecosystem.

The fact that Web Components specifically makes it harder to parse content (for archival or indexing purposes, etc.) is a separate issue, and for it, it doesn't matter if it's standard. In fact, it makes it worse.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22605069

[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share