Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
WebKit achieves Acid3 100/100 in public build
webkit.org — "...WebKit has become the first publicly available rendering engine to achieve 100/100 on Acid3."
donmelton- 1658 diggs
- digg it
- foxter, on 03/27/2008, -9/+117I'm so glad to see this happen. Seems like everyone of the W3C compliant browsers are making it a high priority to comply with all the latest standards. IE9 will probably also pass the Acid3 test.
- freshyill, on 03/27/2008, -12/+159Yeah, and in the meantime, Safari and Opera will be passing the Acid5 test.
- fLUx1337, on 03/27/2008, -3/+36Honestly, even as a web developer, I am never thrilled about anything like this.
I would be more thrilled if in one week, IE lost 5% of its users to another browser (ANYTHING!!!)
Just because for the most part, FireFox, opera, and Safari will render sites very very similarly - IE though, you have to write separate css and html just for it to look right. So it doesn't matter how good rendering engines get for decent browsers, if it doesn't apply to 40%+ of Internet users, it hardly matters.
(though thats not saying I don't love the news, just that it doesnt matter as much as it should)- freshyill, on 03/27/2008, -4/+8It matters, because IE is hemorrhaging users to these other browsers. Grassroots efforts are paying off one user at a time. I bet you could cut IE's marketshare by 1/3 or more if you didn't count people browsing from their workplaces, where they often can't use an alternative.
There was a time when I was loved IE because it was the best browser for a while (and I've always been a Mac user), and then it started to suck, and better alternatives started to appear. I wouldn't fault people for using IE if it was good. But right now, it sucks. People use it because they use the default.
But people are finding better alternatives, and leaving IE. Microsoft is eventually going to have to get their ***** together and make it standards-compliant. If they do, I'll be happy for them, and happy for the Web in general.
The pressure is on Microsoft. I believe they're working on it. If everybody else gave up, then they would too. - DanAtkinson, on 03/27/2008, -10/+3Actually, I beg to differ. If you have a base browser which uses web standards properly, then you can more easily 'degrade' your css to better fit the inabilities of other browsers, such as IE or earlier versions of FF.
- Radan, on 03/27/2008, -3/+26No. Just, no. There's no such thing as "easily degrade your CSS" so that it works with IE. Because that bloody so called "browser" is so freaking broken, most of the time you can't simply change your current style sheet. You will have to rewrite the whole sheet, and sometimes you even have to change the entire layout of the page in order to make something work with IE. IE doesn't support transparent PNGs, it doesn't support dotted borders, it doesn't support min/maxheight/width, it doesn't support bottom or right, hell it can't even render borders correctly!
IE is not a web browser. It's the spawn of all evil. If the entire world would implode in a ball of fire and eternal suffering in fifteen seconds, I would take an express flight to Microsoft's main office and stand and laugh in Balmers face simply because I know that even if I will die because of a overdose of eternal pain, the creators of this hell on Earth, and everyone who has ever known about its existence will too die in tremendous eternal agony. - str1fe, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7It doesn't even get transparent PNGs right? Christ, I've heard IE is bad, but I haven't used it in so long that I didn't even know that. That's quite a perspective.
- Tippis, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Weeell, let's be fair: IE7 *does* support PNG transparency, but fails in so many other ways that you're better off using a good old gifs-and-tables layout :-/
- Radan, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9Well, to be honest IE7 renders pages a lot better than IE6 (still crap though), but as most people still uses IE6, everything I said is pointed towards that.
str1fe:
Here's a comparison of how IE6 renders transparent PNGs and how Safari renders transparent PNGs:
Safari
http://www.irule.se/annat/pngsafari.png
IE6
http://www.irule.se/annat/pngie6.png
The actual page if you want to play around with it
http://www.irule.se/pngtest.html
- Radan, on 03/27/2008, -3/+26No. Just, no. There's no such thing as "easily degrade your CSS" so that it works with IE. Because that bloody so called "browser" is so freaking broken, most of the time you can't simply change your current style sheet. You will have to rewrite the whole sheet, and sometimes you even have to change the entire layout of the page in order to make something work with IE. IE doesn't support transparent PNGs, it doesn't support dotted borders, it doesn't support min/maxheight/width, it doesn't support bottom or right, hell it can't even render borders correctly!
- freshyill, on 03/27/2008, -4/+8It matters, because IE is hemorrhaging users to these other browsers. Grassroots efforts are paying off one user at a time. I bet you could cut IE's marketshare by 1/3 or more if you didn't count people browsing from their workplaces, where they often can't use an alternative.
- Spuy767, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Last time I checked, Ie6 was scoring something like a 4.
- fLUx1337, on 03/27/2008, -3/+36Honestly, even as a web developer, I am never thrilled about anything like this.
- exomni, on 03/27/2008, -2/+31Maybe they'll lower the passing grade
- kruxigt, on 03/27/2008, -5/+0good one ;)
- AngryAngryBrian, on 03/27/2008, -0/+61No browser left behind?
- EllimistX, on 03/27/2008, -0/+14More like Browsers with Disabilities Education Act...
- MacParrot, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8People who support the BwDEA are SCUM! SCUM I say!
- EllimistX, on 03/27/2008, -0/+14More like Browsers with Disabilities Education Act...
- noahhoward, on 03/27/2008, -5/+36"IE9 will probably also pass the Acid3 test."
Am I the only one who thinks that isn't really good enough? I suppose I shouldn't complain, despite its shortcomings IE seems in no danger of dying, at least there is some effort, but you really do have to stop and ask why the 'leading' browser in the world is so woefully outdated.- magicaltrevor, on 03/27/2008, -1/+14I think that's what he was pointing out.
- mehan, on 03/27/2008, -5/+21because 99% the people on the internet don't give a ***** about or even know what Acid3 is.
- noahhoward, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2199% of the people on the internet don't need to know but browser manufactures aren't a part of that 99%.
- yabos, on 03/27/2008, -1/+15But they do care if a site looks screwed up in one browser but not another.
- Radan, on 03/27/2008, -8/+20But the problem is that it's not their problem if the page looks bad in the most commonly used browser in the world, it's the web designer's fault. No matter how freaking bad IE is, we still have to make sure the pages looks good on it. You can't simply deny 40-50% of the entire Internet.
In the end, this leads to the situation where Microsoft doesn't need to spend money on fixing their piece of crap browser, as for the users it doesn't matter whether their browser supports transparent PNGs or not, as the web designers will make sure that the pages looks good anyway.
People need education! I cry out to every web developer out there! Add a little sticker to your pages telling the IE users how much pain and suffering they are inflicting upon us!
And to the non web developers out there; I don't care what browser you use, but DON'T BLOODY USE IE! You have no idea how many hours of work we put down into simply making our pages work with IE.
For every time I see someone use IE, I will snap the neck of a kitten. You. Have. Been. Warned. - monkeyvoodoo, on 03/27/2008, -1/+14Yeowch. You were doing great there, until the kitten comment.
- dlllb, on 03/27/2008, -10/+1If you're spending hours fixing up a page for IE then you obviously don't know how to use Google very well.
- Scaryclouds, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8@dllb
Getting pages to work in IE has little to do with one ability to be able to use or not use Google. IE rendering problems maybe esoteric, numerous, or conflict with how other browsers render pages. - dlllb, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1Nothing that a quick search can't fix. Honestly, every IE issue is documented somewhere on the net with hacks/fixes readily available. It is not a problem for me if the people spending hours 'fixing up a page' don't want the quick route to completion. I'm bored of all the bitching to be honest. I repeat, fixes are available... Hours you spend wasting away are your own loss these days. Now give it a ***** rest you're boring the rest of us.
- Akaji, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2@monkeyvoodoo
Don't worry, by the time he's finished breaking his page so that it works in IE, there'll be a few thousand more kittens populating this world.
- Radan, on 03/27/2008, -8/+20But the problem is that it's not their problem if the page looks bad in the most commonly used browser in the world, it's the web designer's fault. No matter how freaking bad IE is, we still have to make sure the pages looks good on it. You can't simply deny 40-50% of the entire Internet.
- ralphthemagi, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7Because for the longest time IE *was* the standard. In a sense, it still is—but that's finally changing. You can either code for IE compliance, or code for W3C compliance and then spend a few hours going back and either reworking or breaking your code for IE.
- mjayhawker77, on 03/27/2008, -4/+0srry wrong place (delete this if you can)
- diggimator, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1No funding advantage: majority market share multiplied by $0.00 revenue per browser = $0.00
- protogenxl, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1Cha, you know what? Uh-uh.
- Scaryclouds, on 03/27/2008, -13/+2You do realize IE8 passed the Acid 3 test right? I don't know if it got 100/100 but it did render that smiley face perfectly. I'm thankful that IE is finally becoming more standards compliant.
- mjayhawker77, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15You're probably thinking of the Acid 2 test.
- Noriv, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13The smiley face was Acid2 that was created in april 2005 and Safari passed it the same month (non-public build) and now, 2008, Microsoft finally released a beta version of IE8 that passed the test. It took them almost three years to pass the test but it took Apple 15 days to do that. That shows how much interest Microsoft has on standards.
- Qumahlin, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Yes, and keep in mind to pass the acid 2 test the test can only be run from the original acid 2 site due to "security measures" that prevent cross site scripting from working properly if you run it from any other site...quite frankly I find this to either be *****, or more proof that IE has security that is simply unnecessary and does nothing but hamper the user and web developers.
- Scaryclouds, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2@all
My bad.
- freshyill, on 03/27/2008, -12/+159Yeah, and in the meantime, Safari and Opera will be passing the Acid5 test.
- suppaibeg, on 03/27/2008, -9/+97Amazing job by all the WebKit guys! This is the first "for reals" browser to pass the test too. Gonna grab this as soon as they refresh the nightly build so I don't have to build from SVN... Oh wow they just updated it, download for the Mac nightly:
http://nightly.webkit.org/- cgomez, on 03/27/2008, -25/+5Yes, unlike Opera. Webkit has been making massive progress these past few months on all fronts.
- Poltras, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Funny you mention Opera; they passed the test the same night. It's going to be available soon. Firefox is still stuck at 75% I think.
- Noriv, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1But the test was changed after someone from Opera posted the screenshot so they most likely went back to 99/100.
- afx1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1but if the new test was still standards compliant, then it's good opera dropped back to 99 since that means there was still an issue with their engine.
- Noriv, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1But the test was changed after someone from Opera posted the screenshot so they most likely went back to 99/100.
- MrViklund, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Shhh. Don't say anything negative about Opera. Opera-fan boys will bury you. Opera is so desperately trying ti be hipp and cool. No one is using it.
- Poltras, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Funny you mention Opera; they passed the test the same night. It's going to be available soon. Firefox is still stuck at 75% I think.
- BUrAph, on 03/27/2008, -7/+14Is there really any reason to "jump on this build" because it passes the Acid3 test? What real world website will benefit from passing this theoretical test? The acid tests are great for ensuring compatibilities in web standards in the extended future, but I see little benefit from downloading the nightly build as soon as it's released. Seems to me you have a bit too much time on your hands.
- danbedford, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11This is not so someone can go download the nightly build and start using it as their default browser. This shows that Webkit's development team is highly committed to supporting web standards and that the official (read: stable) Safari builds will get this new code incorporated into it sooner than later. The sooner the dev builds get it right, then the sooner the official releases will have it.
This also allows web developers to be able to really start "kicking the tires" with all the new standards that are being worked on by the W3C since it is a public build.
Just like everyone else said, it really is a shame that it doesn't really matter if most of the users on the web will not be using a standards compliant browser because Windows IE is forced on them. Microsoft REALLY needs to get their act together and start being a good citizen in the web development community. - hdante, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Hi,
- Webkit doesn't pass the Acid3 test. It scores 100 in the Acid3 test. RTFA.
- The real world benefit of Acid3 is enormous. It means a whole set of browsers (Safari, mainstream, Konqueror, Epiphany, etc., niche specific, and who knows, even Firefox) adhere to a commonly agreed standard and will make good effort to keep this way.
- The fact that only nightly builds "passes" the Acid3 test just means that soon there will be browsers that pass the Acid3 test. Nobody suggested anything else. And that's great.
- All of us have a bit too much time. We read digg. ;-)
- danbedford, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11This is not so someone can go download the nightly build and start using it as their default browser. This shows that Webkit's development team is highly committed to supporting web standards and that the official (read: stable) Safari builds will get this new code incorporated into it sooner than later. The sooner the dev builds get it right, then the sooner the official releases will have it.
- cgomez, on 03/27/2008, -25/+5Yes, unlike Opera. Webkit has been making massive progress these past few months on all fronts.
- thabih, on 03/27/2008, -33/+20Safari still doesn't work with my bank's website. I'm "thrilled" that it passes Acid3 though?
- suppaibeg, on 03/27/2008, -2/+43Does it REALLY not work, or did their brain dead web developer just put in some lame browser sniffer? Can you get in if you change the User Agent?
Have you also tried complaining to your bank? I think if any of my banks were that lame i'd threaten to take my money elsewhere, which should be motivation enough to get them to fix it.- fahrvergnuugen, on 03/27/2008, -0/+20Roger on the brain dead web developer:
Here's the function used by his bank's site for determining if the browser is supported:
function isBrowserSupported() {
if(!browser.isIE5up && !browser.isFireFox){
//if(browser.isNS && !browser.isGecko){
if (!browser.isNS72up){
alert("¥»ºô¯¸¥HInternet Explorer (5.5 ©Î¥H¤Wª©¥»)¤ÎNetscape (7.2©Î¥H¤Wª©¥»)¬°ºô ¶³] pªº¼Ð·Ç¡A½ÐÀˬd±z©Ò¥ÎªºÂsÄý¾¹¬O§_¦X²Å¦¹ n¨D¡C");
return false;
}
else
return true;
}
return true;
}- ultrafez, on 03/27/2008, -0/+17How did you find out which bank he used?
- noahhoward, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15Someone asked a little ways down.
- ultrafez, on 03/27/2008, -0/+17How did you find out which bank he used?
- fahrvergnuugen, on 03/27/2008, -0/+20Roger on the brain dead web developer:
- olliejnz, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6Have you ever tried filing a bug (http://bugs.webkit.org)? or do you expect the webkit developers to just magically find what non-standard firefox feature is being used by your bank?
- thabih, on 03/27/2008, -21/+3What I expect is for things to just work, that's why I bought an Apple.
- ultrafez, on 03/27/2008, -2/+9You buy an apple from a grocery store. You buy a Mac FROM Apple.
- HonoredMule, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1Wow, that's some cheap Apple. I didn't know they were doing so poorly.
- OverlordXenu, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1ORLY?
http://www.macfixit.com/
- ultrafez, on 03/27/2008, -2/+9You buy an apple from a grocery store. You buy a Mac FROM Apple.
- thabih, on 03/27/2008, -21/+3What I expect is for things to just work, that's why I bought an Apple.
- kodybryson, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6Would you mind telling us what your bank is? URL?
- thabih, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5The largest bank in Hong Kong: http://www.bochk.com/
- fahrvergnuugen, on 03/27/2008, -1/+34Confirmation that their web developer is brain dead:
function isBrowserSupported() {
if(!browser.isIE5up && !browser.isFireFox){
//if(browser.isNS && !browser.isGecko){
if (!browser.isNS72up){
alert("¥»ºô¯¸¥HInternet Explorer (5.5 ©Î¥H¤Wª©¥»)¤ÎNetscape (7.2©Î¥H¤Wª©¥»)¬°ºô¶³]pªº¼Ð·Ç¡A½ÐÀˬd±z©Ò¥ÎªºÂsÄý¾¹¬O§_¦X²Å¦¹n¨D¡C");
return false;
}
else
return true;
}
return true;
} - jbettineski, on 03/27/2008, -25/+2Doesn't matter if the developer is brain dead or not.
The fact is, he can't get into his banks site.
He can do it with IE.- Smoozle, on 03/27/2008, -1/+26Seriously, dude! I hope you realize how ***** stupid your comment is. The code "fahrvergnuugen" posted shows that the site *explicitly excludes* Safari. What are the WebKit team supposed to do, go beat up the bank CIO?
- falafelkiosken, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4you can see they're lame from the gif animation
- fahrvergnuugen, on 03/27/2008, -1/+34Confirmation that their web developer is brain dead:
- thabih, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5The largest bank in Hong Kong: http://www.bochk.com/
- griz, on 03/27/2008, -12/+1My Safari 3.1 doesn't pass Acid 3. What am I doing wrong? I get a "Linktest Failed"
- ghoppe, on 03/27/2008, -1/+15WebKit passed the test, not Safari.
WebKit is the absolute latest build of Safari from the developers. I'm sure it will be rolled into a Safari update in the next couple months.- cr4wl3r, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Correction, webkit is the open-source engine that safari is built on. Other browsers such as camino, also use webkit as a rendering engine.
That being said, an update wont come until late this year likely, say october. Using open source code is a bureaucratic process.
- cr4wl3r, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Correction, webkit is the open-source engine that safari is built on. Other browsers such as camino, also use webkit as a rendering engine.
- ghoppe, on 03/27/2008, -1/+15WebKit passed the test, not Safari.
- cr4wl3r, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Passing the Acid3 test is only half the solution. If your bank's website isn't WRITTEN in standards compliant code, it doesn't matter what Acid test your browser can pass.
- suppaibeg, on 03/27/2008, -2/+43Does it REALLY not work, or did their brain dead web developer just put in some lame browser sniffer? Can you get in if you change the User Agent?
- mithras, on 03/27/2008, -0/+74Neither one claims to be *passing*, though; scoring 100/100 and passing are two different things.
- suppaibeg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+21You are correct, they did score 100/100 but didn't claim a pass.
The WebKit blog was updated already again also and they now believe they pass the rendering portion but the Animation smoothness *might* not pass yet.
It's been fun watching this happen in real-time especially given how late it is now (at least in my time zone).- MacParrot, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2I just downloaded the latest version and so far it's been great. Version r31369 crashed every single time on my MBP (though it worked great on my Intel iMac). I got some error message saying it detected Safari Extensions and then it would disappear. The new version still gives me the error, but it stays up and running (so far).
- freshyill, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1No biggie. Safari 3.1 just came out. There's a looooooong time between now, and the next release of Safari that might take advantage of the progress that WebKit has been making.
- freshyill, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1How the hell did I get voted down so much for this? Seriously, somebody explain.
- etandrib, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11I give it 6 months. Which is basically tomorrow compared to IE development.
- blackjack75, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4That's very true. Usually when I try to score I end up passing (out). These are indeed two different things.
- suppaibeg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+21You are correct, they did score 100/100 but didn't claim a pass.
- Elen, on 03/27/2008, -4/+61Neither browser passes yet. Webkit scores 100/100 but to pass the animation has to be smooth and they are still failing that. Opera doesn't really count since it's an internal build.. and the acid3 they scored 100/100 had a bug in it, so they're probably back to 99/100.
- Premier, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9The bug has been fixed and a new nightly has been released, although only for the mac as of this posting, which hits the new 100/100 mark
- ST0N3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7my newest nightly build hits 100/100 most of the time, but occasionally hits 99/100. the animation seems 100% fluid.
- wavesmachine, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2hey Opera!... document.getElementById('id').innerHTML = 'FAIL';
- Premier, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9The bug has been fixed and a new nightly has been released, although only for the mac as of this posting, which hits the new 100/100 mark
- LumpOfCole, on 03/27/2008, -2/+112Now this is the kind of race where everyone wins.
- Anonymous3, on 03/27/2008, -24/+4The Acid tests do a representative sample of tests against a browser. If it scores 100 in a test, then all it means is that they cover the cases set out in the tests. As for the rest of the dev on the engines, it might be lacking, but hey that's nobody's concern. It's also a pity that webkit has safari to drag it back down.
/downer- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4What?
- Anonymous3, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1What what?
a)That's great that the engines can score perfectly in acid test 3.
b)The acid tests are only an indication of how well an engine can implement a subset of features that come from internet standards groups.
c)The developers have been implementing this subset of features so that their engine can pass the Acid3 test, and what else of substance exactly?
d)Safari isn't the best way of showing off all the features that make a browser standards compatible.
e)So my point (that wasn't clear) was If an engine could pass a test against ALL features/standards, then that would definitely be something to cheer about. This incremental progress, like all other patches and upgrades, is okay but hardly earth shattering news. - Anonymous3, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Actually just read the link below in johnnyb3's post: http://digg.com/software/WebKit_achieves_Acid3_100 ... which has parallels to what I was saying.
- Anonymous3, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1What what?
- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4What?
- Frost9999, on 03/27/2008, -19/+12Anyone keen to hack the webkit engine into the firefox browser? That would be perfect.. webkit plus all those addons.
- astrosmash, on 03/27/2008, -4/+30If only computers worked like that...
- Noctem, on 03/27/2008, -1/+21Well, technically, they are both OSS projects, so it's completely viable. Actually kind of surprised someone hasn't done it yet. IETab exists, why not WebKitTab? WebKit is actually an excellent rendering engine (I play with the nightly builds a lot in vmware), it's a shame that Safari is lacking a lot of basic functionality availble by either by default or by extension in Firefox. I'd kill for a WebKitTab extension.
- directrix13, on 03/27/2008, -1/+12Kill, eh?
- bigsteve, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1IETab simply invokes an IE window form control sized to fit in a Firefox tab space. It's the same control instance that's in a real IE window. Didn't take any crazy engine transplants, just a system call.
- jmreid, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3Dude, just HACK it in!
- bigsteve, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7I'll also hack a jet engine into my Grand National. You know, while I'm hacking and all.
- Noctem, on 03/27/2008, -1/+21Well, technically, they are both OSS projects, so it's completely viable. Actually kind of surprised someone hasn't done it yet. IETab exists, why not WebKitTab? WebKit is actually an excellent rendering engine (I play with the nightly builds a lot in vmware), it's a shame that Safari is lacking a lot of basic functionality availble by either by default or by extension in Firefox. I'd kill for a WebKitTab extension.
- hdante, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/10/05/should-moz ...
- mikeazorin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Somebody's been watching too many movies.
- astrosmash, on 03/27/2008, -4/+30If only computers worked like that...
- SuperJimmyJimbo, on 03/27/2008, -2/+41WebKit is so freaking fast! It's like going from a yugo to a moderately priced mid-sized sedan !
- madk, on 03/27/2008, -26/+140This unfortunately means nothing for 99% of internet users.
- LiquidIse, on 03/27/2008, -6/+15You mean the 99% of internet users that that dont interact with webpages containing javascript, right?
Acid3 isnt merely about compliance but performance as well. the newest build is hitting 96/100 on the performance portion as well, this is vastly improved over recent stable releases. - Phocion55, on 03/27/2008, -2/+68....But means everything to 100% of web developers.
- donte, on 03/27/2008, -9/+10Not really. You don't develop for the highest scoring browser -- you have to develop for the lowest. That is unless you want to have an awesome "Best if Viewed in a WebKit-based Browser" at the bottom of your page.
- madduffy, on 03/27/2008, -13/+3I think you mean fortunately...
- manitoba98xp, on 03/27/2008, -0/+27They don't care, but it does affect them. Imagine a world in which every website looked and functioned exactly the same in every web browser. No more rendering bugs in IE, no more switching back to IE because some site won't allow you to access it otherwise. It would be a world in which one could build a site once, and it would run anywhere.
A guy and dream, can't he? - jotunn, on 03/27/2008, -0/+10It might mean nothing *to* 99% of users, but everyone benefits in the long run from standards compliance. The more noise we make about it now, the more we show historically lazy browser developers (I'm talking to you, IE) that a significant part of the market demands a standards-based browser.
- colincornaby, on 03/27/2008, -4/+11Actually, according to the latest stats %5 of web users use Safari.
- basevillin, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2... and you're saying it affects all of them? Hah.
- LiquidIse, on 03/27/2008, -6/+15You mean the 99% of internet users that that dont interact with webpages containing javascript, right?
- k1netik, on 03/27/2008, -14/+0derrr
- johnnyb3, on 03/27/2008, -5/+31The missed opportunity of acid 3: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed- ...
- kaelyiesta, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7"I hope that we won’t prioritize Acid 3 fixes artificially highly, because I think that would be a disservice to web developers and users"
That, I think, sums up his concerns with the Acid3 Test. Some may call it an excuse, but if you are a developer, you know that work is often punted in favor of more pressing problems. I completely agree with his statement, and hope that other rendering engine devs don't work themselves into a frenzy over acid3 only to neglect more serious problems for end users.
New browsers with next to no widespread use can enjoy work in this area without fear of breaking things that earlier versions of its browser used to render fine for its end users. Ones with more market share are right to be cautious. - MikeCerm, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2He's right. Adherence to esoteric web "standards" is far less important to users than whether they can access their bank's website, or whether Google Reader renders properly, or whether they can access their Yahoo email. Despite standards support, WebKit and Opera have bad track records with all three.
WebKit devs can waste all the time they want trying to support Acid3. For Firefox, devs are better off spending time on stability and features that will actually benefit their users.
- kaelyiesta, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7"I hope that we won’t prioritize Acid 3 fixes artificially highly, because I think that would be a disservice to web developers and users"
- emptyo, on 03/27/2008, -6/+20Wow...I am seriously outgeeked here. I have NO idea what the hell any of this means. Can I get a primer somewhere?
- fuhcough, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6ditto - checked the website but most of it assumes a certain amount of "pre-knowledge"... primer?
- LOVEANDEQUALITY, on 03/27/2008, -5/+6ditto is a pokemon!
- rikwakefield, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Join the club.
- gpit, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7http://www.acidtests.org/
- monototo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+14WebKit [the rendering engine (in this case the part of a browser which translates code into a graphical webpage) used and developed by apple, nokia, adobe, google and others... but most closely intergrated (and developed?) by apple (i think)]
....achieves Acid3 100/100 [the latest of the Acid tests which evaluate how well a browser's redering complies with web standards by testing a diverse range of sample code and checking to see if it renders correctly]
....in public build [which is like a safari pre-released, kind of like beta release for firefox]- monototo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+12if you go to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ you'll see your browser fail the acid3 test.
if you go to http://acid2.acidtests.org/ hopefully you'll see your browser pass acid2
most desktop/laptop browsers pass Acid2, IE8 passes it when it's operating in it's standards-compliance mode, however it ships with a couple other modes (IE7 compliant mode) which make it break certain standards. the PS3/PSP browser also fail Acid2, as do some other "mobile" devices (although the iphone uses webkit, as does the N60, and wii uses opera), but the vast majority of geeks are too busy bitching about the mess that IE is in to really give a crap about any other browser's short comings.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. over the last week the race has heated up to find the fist rendering engine that would pass Acid3. Yesterday/earlier today an internal build of opera's engine made 100/100, however there was an undetected error. Now Webkit has gone public with a release that gets 100/100 and they're bragging that although it's not as smooth as they'd like they think it renders the smother/faster than anyone else at the moment.- TridenTBoy, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Firefox 2.0.1.3 just failed acid2 test :( Maybe it's my fault?
- monototo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+12if you go to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ you'll see your browser fail the acid3 test.
- fuhcough, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6ditto - checked the website but most of it assumes a certain amount of "pre-knowledge"... primer?
- davedelong, on 03/27/2008, -31/+5Webkit ftw, Opera ftl
- cyberwiz01, on 03/27/2008, -0/+22I think you meant
"Standards compliance FTW"
Both Webkit and the Opera engine are very standards compliant. No one is losing here. - CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3s/Opera/IE
- cyberwiz01, on 03/27/2008, -0/+22I think you meant
- Ciryon, on 03/27/2008, -22/+10An internal version of Opera has made 100/100 - they say they would have a test version out in a couple of weeks.
Source in Norwegian: http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=516745- colincornaby, on 03/27/2008, -2/+8And after a bug was found in Acid3 they got bumped back to 99/100.
- senkmajer, on 03/27/2008, -28/+4Yet another indication that Steve Jobs is evil.
- blueness, on 03/27/2008, -3/+16Webkit != Apple product, do your research before showing your ignorance, thank you.
- UKsHaDoW, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2It was an apple fork of khtml. It only worked on a mac for awhile, but now theres lots work being done, and its getting ported back with the help of everybody.
- jorisb, on 03/27/2008, -7/+31. That was sarcasm
2. Webkit is developed by Apple, and used in safari
3. What is it with you fanboys that makes you this uptight?- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Your arrogance and ignorance.
Its OSS too, btw.- jorisb, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1What am I arrogant and ignorant about? I think webkit is freaking fantastic. I just don't see why you people have to lose your ***** over a comment that was clearly sarcasm.
"ts OSS too, btw." This is completely irrelevant. Where, in my three lines of text, did I claim otherwise?
- jorisb, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1What am I arrogant and ignorant about? I think webkit is freaking fantastic. I just don't see why you people have to lose your ***** over a comment that was clearly sarcasm.
- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Your arrogance and ignorance.
- MacParrot, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5WebKit passing the Acid3 test means Steve Jobs is evil? Good Lord, I thought they banned the CIA from doing drug tests on unsuspecting Americans in the 50s...oh wait, you were actually serious?
- senkmajer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Since I seem to see a lot of Apple bashing on this site, I thought the sarcasm would be apparent. Clearly not so
- UKsHaDoW, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2The apple bashers seem to think that they are minority and that digg is full of apple lovers. If you go into apple threads they complain about it all the time.
- blueness, on 03/27/2008, -3/+16Webkit != Apple product, do your research before showing your ignorance, thank you.
- TheWindBlows, on 03/27/2008, -10/+6Does Firefox 3 plan on +90% passing Acid3 or not?
Right now their at 71/100 with Fx3b5pre , and their final planned release is in June.- jotunn, on 03/27/2008, -3/+10I don't think it's a focus for them. I've read that they care more about the "real web" than standards compliance, which sounds more like something Microsoft would say, but whatever: their focus is on stabilizing and releasing Firefox 3.
- vawksel, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8I agree, it does sound like what Microsoft would say.
The idea is if you pass Acid3, and the world develops against the standards, then your browser should render the page. What "Firefox" is really saying is "There's no way in hell we can make Gecko pass Acid3 in any reasonable amount of time without destabilizing the browser and taking another year of development before we can release FF3, so ***** IT". - falafelkiosken, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5"the real web" for microsoft? what's that? document.all?
- vawksel, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8I agree, it does sound like what Microsoft would say.
- garreh, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4They are on 71?! An older version of beta5 was on around 76 I'm sure... they are going backwards in time?!
- thtroyer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Temporary regressions are normal in software development.
- Nanobe, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2It's too close to the final release. We'll see what Firefox 4 (based on the Gecko 2.0 engine in development) will bring.
- jotunn, on 03/27/2008, -3/+10I don't think it's a focus for them. I've read that they care more about the "real web" than standards compliance, which sounds more like something Microsoft would say, but whatever: their focus is on stabilizing and releasing Firefox 3.
- jorisb, on 03/27/2008, -14/+3Congrats to apple, but they still won't support an open-source video format in html5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_5#ogg
I'm so sick of needing plugins for quicktime, windows media, real-player, and the 45 other proprietary video formats out there.- DJNephilim, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2Uhh.....three letters, VLC.
- solid12345, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5VLC is good for downloaded movies but what about embedded ones?
- DJNephilim, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Point to you sir!
However, I would then have to ask, what publicly accessible websites available right now are currently using HTML5 and Ogg formatted audio on the site?
- DJNephilim, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Point to you sir!
- solid12345, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5VLC is good for downloaded movies but what about embedded ones?
- dgp1, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7OGG has failed. Let it GO. No one wants OGG but hardcore zealots. Sorry, it just won't cut it. The reason I wouldn't use OGG over MP3 or AAC is the same reason I wouldn't decide to use JPEG2000 instead of JPEG: Everything freaking supports JPEG and barely anything supports JPEG2000. End of story. Why must we waste so many mental CPU cycles fighting the futile war of OGG adoption??!
- Desurivative, on 03/27/2008, -6/+2I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but notice the foul aroma of Jobs' semen on your breath.
God forbid the Web and the Internet be based on open standards that are not under the control of any one company. *****, it's not difficult to install OGG support on Windows, and I know a lot of Linux distros have it, and I'm sure your polished turd of a Mac can run it as well. ***** proprietary *****.
Oh, and OGG has the backing of Wikipedia, for instance. - hdante, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1This isn't about OGG adoption. The point is that the OGG family have free specifications. If there were some other free spec XYZ, the same would apply.
- Desurivative, on 03/27/2008, -6/+2I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but notice the foul aroma of Jobs' semen on your breath.
- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3OGG = FAIL. Use another format that all of the OS's on the planet can understand.
- Darkhacker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"Ogg is a free, open standard container format maintained by the Xiph.Org Foundation. The Ogg format is unrestricted by software patents and is designed to provide for efficient streaming and manipulation of high quality digital multimedia." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
- CATSCEO, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I correct my statement:
OGG = FAIL. Use another format that all of the OS's on the planet can understand by default. - hdante, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2@CATSCEO
There's no format that matches the statement.- DJNephilim, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1What, like PCM?
- CATSCEO, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I correct my statement:
- Darkhacker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"Ogg is a free, open standard container format maintained by the Xiph.Org Foundation. The Ogg format is unrestricted by software patents and is designed to provide for efficient streaming and manipulation of high quality digital multimedia." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
- jorisb, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Ok, so you don't like ogg, but my point was that we need a video format that doesn't have massive restriction on who can use it. It would be nice if all browsers could natively support a video format, without needing flash, silverlight, quicktime, wmp, etc.
- DJNephilim, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2Uhh.....three letters, VLC.
- JasonCox, on 03/27/2008, -15/+8Wait, didn't Opera get 100% when WebKit was still at 9x%?
- FenrisUlf, on 03/27/2008, -2/+15Wasn't a public build, the Opera build won't be out for a few weeks.
- omin0us, on 03/27/2008, -21/+2yeah, and they cheated... one of the last lines of that diff, a nice hard coded font.
http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/3 ... - omin0us, on 03/27/2008, -22/+2yeah, and they cheated... one of the last lines of that diff a nice hard coded font.
http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/3 ... - omin0us, on 03/27/2008, -20/+0uh.. i ***** up the last link, bury it.. but yeah, they cheated with a hard coded font.
http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/3 ...- trampfiesta, on 03/27/2008, -5/+10STOP TRIPLE POSTING YOU *****, there is an edit function
- SirG3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13For anyone wondering why they hard coded a workaround for the Ahem font, see http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17086
- cronot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15Wow, that's messed up. I think both parties here are in the wrong.
I think Apple is right on their argument, and Ian is being a dick - the CSS should not dictate how a font should (or not) be antialiased, and user scale factor is something that makes perfect sense, and that can influence the rendering in this case.
Apple however made their own argument moot though because they put on a crappy code to "fix" the problem, just to get the media attention of (apparently) passing the test. They should have stood by their argument and rather not pass the test than cheating.- wonderchemist, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5This is hardly the only place in WebKit where Safari /Webkit turns off default features of another API in order to 'correct' something. Is this the right thing to do? Probably not. But Apple has to live in a world where Safari/WebKit is the #3 rendering engine. This means somethings that 'break' only Safari/WebKit need to be fixed in this kludged manner.
- cronot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15Wow, that's messed up. I think both parties here are in the wrong.
- aoki4, on 03/27/2008, -29/+1you have to be a huge ***** loser to care about this
- Peavey, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5Yeah, who cares about having their web browser render a web page the way it's supposed to look.
/sarcasm - legendxx, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9Or work in the industry
Also after looking at your comment history. You are a worthless troll. Reported. - CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Go back to myspace.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2clearly you care enough to click on the link....
- Peavey, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5Yeah, who cares about having their web browser render a web page the way it's supposed to look.
- Raian, on 03/27/2008, -13/+13How to get Steve Jobs interested in Web Standards... Name the test after his favourite recreational past-time.
Steve passed the Acid3 test way back in the early 70s.- MacParrot, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4Well if he only took it three times, that's alright then. If this is true, I should be able to pass the Acid20 (or more, I can't remember) test.
- FeelThePain, on 03/27/2008, -20/+4No one cares if a sub-par engine gets 100%, especially *****. Gecko sets the standards, where Safari fails to match them. If Gecko doesn't support Acid3 fully, then another engine supporting it fully isn't following the standards. Therefore WebKit, oops... *****, will never catch up the the obviously superior Gecko engine that we've all come to love.
- jotunn, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6I'd like to think you were just missing /sarcasm.
- trampfiesta, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5Keep dreaming, Webkit blows Gecko out of the water. Also webkit is ***** excellent on mobile platforms, don't see anyone rushing to use gecko on there because its such a poor performer memory and speed wise
- Me1000, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Actually W3C sets the standards!
- TheNeptune, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Wow... that HAS to be the most fanboy comment ever. Congratulations, your single Gecko-fanboy comment set all the Windows, Mac, Microsoft, Apple, Halo, Xbox, PS, etc fanboys to shame and you are king of the basement.
- Clark, on 03/27/2008, -10/+5My Safari got a 75/100...,
Anywhoo, I use WebKit and love it.- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -4/+9Safari 3.1 != Webkit Browser
- Qumahlin, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7He never stated it did. Read what he said again. He said his safari got 75/100, and then stated he uses WebKit. At no point did he say Safari and WebKit were the same thing.
- Darkhacker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Safari is using WebKit so it sort of is a WebKit browser, it's just not using the latest nightly build is all.
- CATSCEO, on 03/27/2008, -4/+9Safari 3.1 != Webkit Browser
- InspectorGadget, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5If only there were a lean mean Webkit browser for Windows. Safari has a host of issues (not least the fact that it draws its own UI) and Swift...isn't. Anbody know of a decent Windows Webkit browser that will let me drop in the newest build of Webkit?
- whalt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2If I'm not mistaken the latest nightly builds of Webkit allow you to switch text rendering to Windows native ClearType, I'm not sure if Apple is planning to enable this or make it the default in future versions of Safari but it does show that the problem is being worked on.
- InspectorGadget, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Thanks. I was referring to the actual browser chrome - I read about the font fix on Ars Technica this morning. I'm just looking for a native Windows webkit browser with a less ugly interface than Safari and more functionality than Swift.
- MattBD, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Well, the KDE desktop is due to come to Windows later this year (from KDE 4.1) and this includes the Konqueror web browser. Around this time Konqueror is slated to have the Qt port of Webkit available, so that might be a good bet.
- whalt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2If I'm not mistaken the latest nightly builds of Webkit allow you to switch text rendering to Windows native ClearType, I'm not sure if Apple is planning to enable this or make it the default in future versions of Safari but it does show that the problem is being worked on.
- fyanardi, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Latest KHTML (WebKit is a fork of KHTML) still scores around ~67/100, pretty sad :( When the Acid 3 was first published, KHTML was ahead by few points
- mithrasinvictus, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4Let's hope Apple gives something back.
- behavedave, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8They already have WebKit (KHTML's prodigy) can be used by all. I'm interested to know how you fyanardi got 67/100 when Konq just crashed on me (Unless you were using the KDE4 drop which I haven't tested). Konq + Webkit would be very compelling though - hopefully the distros will pick up on it but I can't think of a way without upsetting the KHTML guys.
- Me1000, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4???
it is open source! How much more could they give back?
- mithrasinvictus, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4Let's hope Apple gives something back.
- LOVEANDEQUALITY, on 03/27/2008, -9/+4safari is the best!
- maninalift, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5Is there such a thing as an open-source cross-platform webkit based browser?
When will Konqueror switch to WebKit?- DJNephilim, on 03/27/2008, -9/+3Did you bother to look at the webkit site? The source is there....for download.....so that you can, you know....compile it.
- falafelkiosken, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7it's only the engine
- DJNephilim, on 03/27/2008, -9/+3Did you bother to look at the webkit site? The source is there....for download.....so that you can, you know....compile it.
- vawksel, on 03/27/2008, -2/+10As soon as a non-apple extensible open source browser comes out using WebKit, I'll wave completely goodbye to Firefox.
I do see it happening, maybe we'll have a solution in less than a year. WebKit is not only much more compliant than Gecko, but 20x faster. Test it for yourself.- geoken, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3I just did with Safari and FF3. If by 20x faster you meant slightly slower than you're 100% correct.
- Me1000, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Android?
- SuperSunny, on 03/27/2008, -7/+26We def need WebKit in Firefox. It owns Gecko.
- AQUANETA, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2But is it feasible?
- disrupter, on 03/27/2008, -7/+2*****
- AddictedToMosh, on 03/27/2008, -22/+2apple fan boy faggotry begin!
- bengringo, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7you know they have webkit for windows right?
- lumbergh, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7I'm going to do all the work of the trolls here in one shot (since you're all so ***** original):
[disparaging remark about inserting apple products into steve jobs' butt]
[closet appeals to homosexuality using accusatory words like "faggot" or "gay"]
[senseless marketshare remark about either apple or safari]
[numerous misspellings including "Mac" as "MAC"]
[irrelevant bash on apple without citing evidence]
[off-topic mention about high upfront cost, ignoring obvious time or maintenance costs of competitors] - falafelkiosken, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5so does the anti-apple "faggotry"
- lilricky, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1um, dont they admit that they don't have the smooth animation necessary to pass Acid3? Even so, it looks very promising!
- hotbeefman, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9WebKit's incredible CSS 2 standards adherence is proudly supported / abused by my site.
- phogasmic, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15These Acid tests must kill the IE developers. They finally build a browser that can pass the Acid 2 Test then before they can even release it a new test comes out to shame them again. Hopefully the IE team is going to work on IE8 until it can pass this.
- t1m1, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9Like it or not: Exactly the same goes for Firefox.
- Qumahlin, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You have to realize while the "acid" tests are informative, saying the devs are upset at their scores is something entirely different. It will still be fine for most sites out there. What people fail to realize is that most people who buy computers don't even think "well what browser do I want to use".
- MikeCerm, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1That's as much a problem with the test as it is with IE. Since IE has 70% market share, there's not really much incentive to turn on a dime just because some guy creates a test that very little to do with the way actual websites work.
- phogasmic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3it matters to me. I'd love to use CSS animations,SVG, and all the other advanced goodies of CSs3 and HTML 5, but until browser makers get serious like the Webkit and Firefox teams then we are going to be able too.
- darkism, on 03/27/2008, -1/+12And IE6 achieves 11!
- celkin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2It went all the way to 11!
- lumbergh, on 03/27/2008, -9/+6I'm going to do all the work of the trolls here in one shot:
[disparaging remark about inserting things into steve jobs' butt]
[senseless marketshare remark about either apple or safari]
[needless bash on apple]
[misspelling "Mac" as MAC]
[off-topic mention about high upfront cost, ignoring obvious time or maintenance costs of competitors]- ch1x0r3r, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2Troll.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2Oh look he wants people to buy Apple products...
- Virgule, on 03/27/2008, -9/+1baloney!
mine crapout at 75/100 with a "linktest failed" ;(- ThreeDee912, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Try downloading the latest nightly build:
http://nightly.webkit.org/
- ThreeDee912, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Try downloading the latest nightly build:
- keithjinternet, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Excuse my ignorance, but what does this all mean?
- hdante, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3This means that Webkit is an engine that has exelent support for web standards.
- dema, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2But does it have a spell checker?
- adc86, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2On a Mac, every Cocoa application has a spellchecker, grammar checker, and dictionary built in.
- dema, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2But does it have a spell checker?
- hdante, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3This means that Webkit is an engine that has exelent support for web standards.
- SQLserver, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Are there any ACTUAL browsers out there that use the passing version?
BESIDES Safari?
And more importantly, are there any for Linux.(BESIDES Konqueror/KHTML)
I've heard you can build Epiphany with Webkit, and that Epiphany can use Firefox Extensions.
Is that true, and are both true at the same time?- bruce89, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Yes, Epiphany can use WebKit, but no, it can't use Firefox extensions.
- MattBD, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I've heard of a browser for Linux called Skipstone which uses Gecko by default but now has support for Webkit as well. The site is at http://www.muhri.net/skipstone/
- homeathouse, on 03/27/2008, -4/+20---------------------------
Microsoft Internet Explorer
---------------------------
Failed 88 tests.
Test 00 failed: 'document.defaultView' is null or not an object
Test 01 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 02 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 03 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 04 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 05 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 06 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 07 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 08 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 09 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 10 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 11 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 12 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 13 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 15 failed: privilege escalation security bug: text file ran script
Test 16 failed: Unexpected call to method or property access.
Test 17 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 18 failed: expected '10' but got '8' - DOCTYPE nodeType wrong
Test 19 failed: expected '11' but got 'undefined' - document DOCUMENT_FRAGMENT_NODE constant missing or wrong
Test 20 failed: null in getElementById() probably terminated string
Test 21 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 22 failed: no exception for createElement('')
Test 23 failed: expected '5' but got 'undefined' - wrong exception for createElementNS('null', '')
Test 24 failed: expected 'update() /* this attribute's value is tested in one of the tests */ ' but got 'function anonymous()n{nupdate() /* this attribute's value is tested in one of the tests */ n}' - onload value wrong
Test 25 failed: exceptions don't have all the constants
Test 26 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 27 failed: 'kungFuDeathGrip.0' is null or not an object
Test 28 failed: getElementById() searched on 'name'
Test 29 failed: expected '2' but got '1' - cloned table had wrong number of children
Test 30 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 31 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 32 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 33 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 34 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 35 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 36 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 37 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 38 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 39 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 40 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 41 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 42 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 43 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 44 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 45 failed: expected 'right' but got 'undefined' - body doesn't have floatation
Test 46 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 47 failed: 'documentElement' is null or not an object
Test 49 failed: expected '0' but got '1' - after creation: tBodies.length
Test 50 failed: orphan row has unexpected parent
Test 51 failed: expected '6' but got '5' - wrong number of rows
Test 52 failed: form.elements === form
Test 53 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 54 failed: expected 'HIDDEN' but got 'hidden' - input control's type content attribute was wrong
Test 55 failed: Invalid argument.
Test 56 failed: radio group absent
Test 57 failed: Type mismatch.
Test 58 failed: defaultSelected didn't take
Test 59 failed: expected 'submit' but got 'button' - doesn't have type=submit
Test 60 failed: attribute not specified
Test 61 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 62 failed: expected 'buckets' but got 'null' - buckets: class wrong
Test 63 failed: expected '' but got 'http://acid3.acidtests.org/' - wrong value for href=''
Test 64 failed: expected './test.html' but got 'test.html' - object elements didn't resolve URIs correctly
Test 67 failed: when calling removeNamedItemNS in a non existent attribute: wrong exception raised
Test 69 failed: timeout -- could be a networking issue
Test 71 failed: missing document for test
Test 72 failed: missing document for test
Test 73 failed: 'undefined' is null or not an object
Test 74 failed: contentDocument failed for referencing an svg document.
Test 75 failed: contentDocument failed on for svg document.
Test 76 failed: contentDocument failed on for svg document.
Test 77 failed: contentDocument failed on for svg document.
Test 78 failed: contentDocument failed on for svg document.
Test 79 failed: 'undefined' is null or not an object
Test 80 failed: Script in XHTML didn't execute
Test 81 failed: expected '1' but got '2' - [,] doesn't have length 1
Test 83 failed: expected '6' but got 'undefined' - array.unshift() returned the wrong value
Test 84 failed: expected '0.0001' but got '0.0000' - toFixed(4) wrong for 0.00006
Test 85 failed: expected 'cat' but got 'sca' - substr() wrong with negative numbers
Test 86 failed: Argument not optional
Test 89 failed: orphaned bracket not considered parse error in regular expression literal
Test 90 failed: /(3)(1)(a)/ failed to match 'cat'
Test 91 failed: expected '10' but got '3' - missing properties
Test 93 failed: expected '1' but got '2' - semantics of FunctionExpression: function Identifier ... not followed
Test 94 failed: expected 'pass' but got 'failing' - outer scope poisoned by exception catch{} block
Test 97 failed: expected 'one' but got 'fail' - data: failed as escaped
Test 98 failed: Object doesn't support this property or method
Test 99 failed: expected 'www.example.com' but got 'http://hixie.ch/' - sanity did not prevail
Total elapsed time: 9.03s
---------------------------
OK
---------------------------- DiggDuggDone, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9My test on XP SP2 with IE 6 received a 5/100 rating. Boo!
- wavesmachine, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2EPIC FAIL!
- Thekirby45, on 03/27/2008, -2/+11I got 14 on ie7 wow glad I use firefox
- fullphaser, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5I hate to say this, but the Acid test aren't testing browser compatibility and compliance standards, they test how well the browser can deal with ***** code. Many of these browsers are still standard complaint and not passing the Acid3 test. I'd like to see safari fix the problem it has with CSS3 before they go jumping about how they passed the next acid test.
- wonderchemist, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6The also force the adoption of new technologies. Acid3 has some tests for SVG, which forces any browser wishing to pass to include SVG. This is a good thing.
- fullphaser, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Well than make them all pass transparency compatibility before they deal with horrible code
- hdante, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Wrong. The Acid tests are testing browser compliance standards _and_ how well the browser can deal with ***** code. No browser is standards compliant. In particular, if the browser doesn't pass the Acid tests, that's a proof that the browser is not compliant.
- wonderchemist, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6The also force the adoption of new technologies. Acid3 has some tests for SVG, which forces any browser wishing to pass to include SVG. This is a good thing.
- bengringo, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Im using the latest build of webkit and its a pretty good release. Its nice to finally have web browser developers fighting to see who can have the most standards compliant browser.
- jo21, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4webkit is also use in nokia s60 symbian web browser.
- ladbroke, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Okay, so as someone that doesn't really understand the acid tests, what is the point of having standards if no one uses them? I understand that MS stated previously that passing the acid tests wasn't a priority, but if there are standards showing how sites should be displayed, why aren''t they followed to the letter?
What are the technical limitations keeping everyone from passing the tests? Why doesn't every developer have the incentive to be as standards compliant as possible?- TomPhoolery, on 03/27/2008, -6/+2Standards aren't really "standards", they're more like guidelines. The guidelines are written by normal folks who do not work for these companies, and put them on the web so that the browsers will hopefully follow them and eventually we'll live in a standards-only web. It's gotten much better since the IE/Netscape wars of the early part of the century (ugh and ...), but there are still some giant steps to take.
- homeagain1, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Not exactly. Many companies including Microsoft, Opera etc. are all members of the W3C and have made a ton of contributions to make the standards what they are today.
- ThreeDee912, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2The Acid test aren't really testing browser standards compliance, they test how well the browser can deal with crappy code. Many of browsers are still standard complaint but can't passing the Acid3 test. So even if a page isn't standards compliant, Acid3-passing browsers should still be able to display them correctly.
- hdante, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2There's no point in having standards if no one uses them. This race to Acid3 shows that there are people using them, however.
Standards are not followed to the letter for several reasons. An important technical reason is that the standard is big and complex. Another problem is that there are no tests certifying standards compliance (that's why the Acid tests are so important).
However you should consider the business issues for some institution to decide it should not to follow standards, rather than the technical ones (left as an exercise to the reader).
Web page developers doesn't have any incentive to be as standards compliant as possible, because most people use Internet Explorer, which doesn't follow any standard.
- TomPhoolery, on 03/27/2008, -6/+2Standards aren't really "standards", they're more like guidelines. The guidelines are written by normal folks who do not work for these companies, and put them on the web so that the browsers will hopefully follow them and eventually we'll live in a standards-only web. It's gotten much better since the IE/Netscape wars of the early part of the century (ugh and ...), but there are still some giant steps to take.
- TomPhoolery, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1If only it would support Flash without ***** crashing...I'd be using Safari right now.
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
