Internet Explorer 9 tops first HTML5 conformance test

The first HTML5 conformance test has been released today and Microsoft's Internet Explorer Platform Preview 6 has taken the top spot. Although HTML5 still isn't finalized, it's nice to see Microsoft make such a drastic change in the past few months.

Internet Explorer Platform Preview 6, which is more or less Internet Explorer 9 without the UI, isn't out of beta yet and is already knocking down the competition. Google Chrome 7.0.517.41 beta came in a close second, with Firefox 4 beta 6, Opera 10.60 and Safari 5.0 falling far behind.

html5table

The W3C tests performed only tested attributes, audio, canvas, getElementsByClassName, foreigncontent, video and xhtml5. Other tests like CSS3 and many other non-HTML5 related tests were not included in the report. You can see the full report on W3C's website here.

Microsoft is expected to release Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate (RC) within the next few months, bypassing the beta 2 release.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Bill Gates adopts WP7 for his personal device

Next Story

iPhone 5 might be your next wallet

52 Comments

View more comments

NesTle said,
nothing with the dev 8.0 of Chrome?

Eh, I'm upset the in.the.developers.vision version wasn't tested. I mean have you seen what's in their heads? Faster than lightning strikes, and with HTML5/CSS3 backwards and forwards in full standards.

The_DINGUS said,
Conformance testing was the end-all, be-all of browsers back when older versions of IE weren't compliant.

It will be funny to see the anti-MS zealots backpedal on that philosophy now and come up with some new metric for bashing IE.

I'm not sure to follow you here.

You call people anti-ms zealots because they complained about the lack of standard support of IE 6, 7. But then you actually act like the support of said standard would be important. Then it means those people were not anti-ms zealots at all but people who had valid complaints.

People who complained about IE 6, 7 had every reasons to do so. And very good reasons.

It's great to see MS supporting standard better.

LaP said,

You call people anti-ms zealots because they complained about the lack of standard support of IE 6, 7.

No, I didn't. Learn to read and then find something else to do with your time.

The_DINGUS said,
No, I didn't. Learn to read and then find something else to do with your time.

I have to agree with Lap, I don't see exactly what you're trying to say Dingus, maybe add a clarification?

I actually don't like it's GUI, it can't be customized for jack and the tabs are now stuck on the address bar's "toolbar". I applaud the standards support though there is no way in hell I'll encode audio or video with H.264 or other MPAA/RIAA backed codecs.

Also if you look up Code Dread's "SVG support" (Google it) you'll see that Microsoft is clearly trying to get on par with Firefox 3.6/Gecko 1.9.2 in regards to SVG support.

Also I'm going from XP to Kubuntu I think at this point, 7 sucks harder then Vista (not going to debate, that's my permanent stance) and Microsoft used the lame excuse of 3D acceleration instead of fixing the issues with 7 and putting the features back that they ripped out. It's clear that they don't understand what people need and want and that a lot of agendas outside of technology like H.264 from Hollywood are in effect over at camp Microsoft.

So they're doing a decent job...pretty darn good in the standards department and decent starting CSS3 support though it's not without still valid criticisms though thankfully a lot less to do with standards compliance.

JAB Creations said,
Also I'm going from XP to Kubuntu I think at this point, 7 sucks harder then Vista (not going to debate, that's my permanent stance)...

What's wrong with 7? Not bashing or flaming; just wondering.

geeman89 said,

What's wrong with 7? Not bashing or flaming; just wondering.

It still isn't as compliant as the other browsers are.

JAB Creations said,

Also I'm going from XP to Kubuntu I think at this point, 7 sucks harder then Vista (not going to debate, that's my permanent stance) and Microsoft used the lame excuse of 3D acceleration instead of fixing the issues with 7 and putting the features back that they ripped out.

It was at this point I realized you were either purposely ignorant, or just a troll.

Wow, Win7, really? Then bashing it for the WDDM, really? Then bashing it for 'ripped out' features? I would love to see these ripped out features, and if you list the network icon blinking in the taskbar, I might pee myself laughing.

thenetavenger said,

I would love to see these ripped out features, and if you list the network icon blinking in the taskbar, I might pee myself laughing.

He is a changeophobe who is scared to lose his security blanket Windows XP. The only features removed were outdated and obsolete or moved from the core OS install to the Windows Live suite.

Also LMAO at his stupid H.264 remark. Typical someone stuck with an outdated OS would religously refuse to use a modern codec, probably still using XviD... pathetic.

The_DINGUS said,

He is a changeophobe who is scared to lose his security blanket Windows XP. The only features removed were outdated and obsolete or moved from the core OS install to the Windows Live suite.

Also LMAO at his stupid H.264 remark. Typical someone stuck with an outdated OS would religously refuse to use a modern codec, probably still using XviD... pathetic.

I fail to see the link between Windows XP (which is not outdated btw) and H264. You do realise that it is perfectly possible to read H264 files under Windows XP right ? And that a lot of people already switched from xvix/divx to H264 video and mkv wrapper.

For someone who call others this and that you really don't make a lot of sense to be honest.

so showing tests against older versions proves something is better I think not as Opera is at Vs 10.63 or if your using one of the Beta's it in the 10.70 range

Athlonite said,
so showing tests against older versions proves something is better I think not as Opera is at Vs 10.63 or if your using one of the Beta's it in the 10.70 range
That is the W3C's table that each browser vendor submits their comfority results to. The W3C most likely checks the results by running the same tests through the browsers versions that the vendors used.

Athlonite said,
so showing tests against older versions proves something is better I think not as Opera is at Vs 10.63 or if your using one of the Beta's it in the 10.70 range

If you go into their alphas, they're actually on version 11.

If you add up all the scores then it looks like this
IE9 scores 672,88
FF scores 626,58
Chrome Scores 616,32
Opera Sores 456,54
Safari Scores 393,20

doing it as percentage of 700 it becomes
IE scores 96,13%
FF scores 89,51%
Chrome Scores 88,05%
Opera scores 65,22%
Safari scores 56.17%

So yes, IE clearly wins followed by FF and Chrome close together. The rest is just not there yet. But saying that chrome is the only browser close to IE9 is wrong.

It's a matter of taste, i don't see the point of browser wars anymore, i surf web pages with my browser, not use it on benchmark tests, and on decent hardware, all new browsers are improved to a level that makes the speed differences hard to see in real life usage.

vladtm said,
It's a matter of taste, i don't see the point of browser wars anymore, i surf web pages with my browser, not use it on benchmark tests, and on decent hardware, all new browsers are improved to a level that makes the speed differences hard to see in real life usage.

Yep, but it is what is 'not' here that will make the compliance and performance relevant again.

With the newer CSS and HTML5 features, web sites will be able to behave more like applications than documents, with a lot of graphical and dynamic content processing and rendering. This is where shoving as much of the interaction, processing, and rendering of these standards to a level that is getting close to interpreted code instead of web content will sink or swim these standards and the browsers of the future.

IE9 may not be the king when html5 is more common, but their approach to applying JIT concepts to every level of browsing and rendering (not just the javascript engine) is something no one else is doing.

The closest you will find in the other browsers is early attempts at GPU assisted rendering, and the javascript JITs, but these are only two areas out of several layers where shoving the content to both the CPU and even GPU computing (beyond rendering) that the web content can run faster. And so far, Firefox's basic Direct2D rendering and some OpenGL testing here and there and a few elements in Safari is all the other browsers are offering in even the GPU rendering aspect.

So, uh, how do you run the test?

Since W3C haven't used the latest versions of all browsers there...

Opera 10.60? Chrome *7* beta? WTF.

I'm not saying these browsers will do better, but come on... an Opera version from August against IE from late October?

Good to hear.

I just spent the most annoying and frustrating weekend trying to get my company web portal to render properly on IE 6 and 7, because some of our clients refused to upgrade to IE 8. My God that was horrible!

Microsoft not only needs to make IE 9 as compliant as it can be, but also need to figure out a way to get these companies living with IE 6 and 7 to upgrade to IE 9 when its released.

Joho said,
Good to hear.

I just spent the most annoying and frustrating weekend trying to get my company web portal to render properly on IE 6 and 7, because some of our clients refused to upgrade to IE 8. My God that was horrible!

Microsoft not only needs to make IE 9 as compliant as it can be, but also need to figure out a way to get these companies living with IE 6 and 7 to upgrade to IE 9 when its released.

IE 6 will go when Windows XP does, plain and simple. IE 7 came on Vista by default; however, IE 8 (and 9) are available for it. Microsoft has already launched the Final Assault On XP, by barring preloads on new hardware (Vista Basic can be preloaded instead, and, surprisingly, even it doesn't perform badly, though 7 cleans its clock on the same hardware); I'm expecting the banhammer to come down on remanufacturers like Joy Systems within the next six months.

Here's something from my "personal experiences" file: One thing that I do to earn pin money is to keep the family and family friends' PCs (generic term - unlike some, I'm not afraid of recent Macs) up and running. Wherever possible, XP gets replaced with Windows 7 (the same, naturally, applies to Vista); this is especially true where GPU hardware acceleration (Aero) is available. Get this - nobody has wanted to go back to XP.

That leads me to think that there are two (and only two) driving forces keeping XP around on desktops (again, generic term - this includes portables of any sort) - incompatibities (either hardware or software) and FUD.

Take these results with a grain of salt.

I'm looking at the results for say the video tests. According to the chart, Firefox, Opera, and Safari lag the most in these areas, registering as "No Result," with IE and Chrome passing. Yet I opened up the very first test and it appears to pass.

Commenting is disabled on this article.