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

Commenting is disabled on this article.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Headed in a good direction for sure. For me personally however, unless the browser is available for both Windows and OS X it's of little value, as I want to use the same browser on both platforms.

virtorio said,
Headed in a good direction for sure. For me personally however, unless the browser is available for both Windows and OS X it's of little value, as I want to use the same browser on both platforms.

Browsers are gradually moving toward becoming nothing more than document viewers of a standardized document format. Your desire to use the exact same software on all platforms makes about as much sense as refusing to use Notepad because Microsoft doesn't release a Mac version.

virtorio said,
Headed in a good direction for sure. For me personally however, unless the browser is available for both Windows and OS X it's of little value, as I want to use the same browser on both platforms.

Seriously?

virtorio said,
Headed in a good direction for sure. For me personally however, unless the browser is available for both Windows and OS X it's of little value, as I want to use the same browser on both platforms.
I like to use the same theme, have the same extensions (especially web developer orientated ones) and have the pages render the same (which all browsers do a little differently, especially when scrolling and zooming). I can have this Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari.

Your desire to use the exact same software on all platforms makes about as much sense as refusing to use Notepad because Microsoft doesn't release a Mac version.

Exaggerate much?

virtorio said,
Headed in a good direction for sure. For me personally however, unless the browser is available for both Windows and OS X it's of little value, as I want to use the same browser on both platforms.

So you are saying...
I like to use two entirely differnt OSes and platforms with different UIs and interaction/usabilty models, yet I NEED my browser to look the same on both OSes.

Really?

thenetavenger said,

So you are saying...
I like to use two entirely differnt OSes and platforms with different UIs and interaction/usabilty models, yet I NEED my browser to look the same on both OSes.

Really?


I like to have the same features, addons (aka functionality) and "experience" (zoom, scroll, render) between different platforms.

I don't quite see why people seem to have a problem with that.

I never said I "NEED"ed to have my browsers look the same, I said I like the same functionality between platforms. I don't have a meltdown or go on a killing spree every time I load up IE.

Joshie said,

Browsers are gradually moving toward becoming nothing more than document viewers of a standardized document format. Your desire to use the exact same software on all platforms makes about as much sense as refusing to use Notepad because Microsoft doesn't release a Mac version.

Which would be about as useful as udders on a bull, as TextEdit is standard with OS X (even SnowLeopard).

While Windows 7 (Ultimate x64, to be precise) is my default operating system, even it isn't the best at everything. There are some things that other operating systems are better at (depending on the use, it may be a Linux distribution, or OS X, or even, egads, a UNIX such as OpenSolaris or a fork thereof) than Windows. That's why large hard drives (better yet, multiple SATA hard drives) make sense, at least for moi.

Which is why some find it odd that Firefox (specifically, 4.0 beta 6) is my default browser everywhere "except" Windows (there, IE 9's current public beta rules the roost). There is a reason for that, and it has to do with coding diffrences between the platforms.

AKLP said,
i dont care even if it can make burgers, i still rather use a html1 browser than that.

So even if it's the best browser, you don't want to use it, because...it's Microsoft?

It's software. Not religion. You people that bring principles into software defaults are weird and fail at priorities. There are better battles to fight.

AKLP said,
i dont care even if it can make burgers, i still rather use a html1 browser than that.

So, basically, you are a ****ing idiot.

"Oh, look at me, Im a nerd that take sides so, if a company I hate makes a great product I will not use it, it's all about my moral code"

AKLP said,
i dont care even if it can make burgers, i still rather use a html1 browser than that.

I don't care even if non-Microsoft browsers can give me blow-jobs, I will continue using IE as my default browser for the rest of my life, just like I have done for the last 15 years.

Everything's beta but not Opera and Safari?
Since Safari shares its engine with Google Chrome, I believe the actual results of a Beta Safari at Apple are closer to Google Chrome's than to Safari in this graphic.

PsykX said,
Everything's beta but not Opera and Safari?
Since Safari shares its engine with Google Chrome, I believe the actual results of a Beta Safari at Apple are closer to Google Chrome's than to Safari in this graphic.

There goes one Opera user complaining. Redo ASAP before one more shows up Andrew, quickly! JK

PsykX said,
Everything's beta but not Opera and Safari?
Since Safari shares its engine with Google Chrome, I believe the actual results of a Beta Safari at Apple are closer to Google Chrome's than to Safari in this graphic.

While Safari and Chrome are using Webkit, Webkit is open source, so Google can always add more features and improve performance/standards compliance without Apple having to do so

PsykX said,
Everything's beta but not Opera and Safari?
Since Safari shares its engine with Google Chrome, I believe the actual results of a Beta Safari at Apple are closer to Google Chrome's than to Safari in this graphic.

They tend to put newer versions of webkit into Chrome than they do into safari.

I hope they take the advice of all the "reddit"? users that they reached out to for ideas. If they implemented those new ideas, there should be a beta 2 with the new features.

ccoltmanm said,
I hope they take the advice of all the "reddit"? users that they reached out to for ideas. If they implemented those new ideas, there should be a beta 2 with the new features.

No Beta 2, next one will be RC1 or just RC in early or mid December it seems.

Tops on CSS 2.1 too
It's one thing to say that you support HTML5, it's another to support it RIGHT.
IE already has
1. GPU accelerated HTML5, natively
2. process per TAB, already
3. Protected Mode as Sandbox capabilities
4. H.264 video fully gpu accelerated
5. 64bit Browser
6. Best HTML5 conformity so far
7. On par - fast - Javascript engine
8. Most friendly of any other browsers when it comes to energy consumption thanks to GPU
9. Built in Adblocking through Inprivate Filtering lists.

H.264 codec is not a an acknowledged standard that all of us web designers, web developers, webmasters, and graphics people who understand politics will willingly use due to it putting money in to the pockets of the people suing grandmothers over MP3 files when the music and movie industry is basking in their highest ever profits. If IE9 does not BY DEFAULT (as in not requiring MANUAL installation by the user) open source codecs then it does NOT support the audio and or video elements (which a lot of people call "tags").

JAB Creations said,
H.264 codec is not a an acknowledged standard that all of us web designers, web developers, webmasters, and graphics people who understand politics will willingly use due to it putting money in to the pockets of the people suing grandmothers over MP3 files when the music and movie industry is basking in their highest ever profits. If IE9 does not BY DEFAULT (as in not requiring MANUAL installation by the user) open source codecs then it does NOT support the audio and or video elements (which a lot of people call "tags").

Microsoft has remained rather agnostic about a default codec and supported codecs, so I agree with you, but IE9 is not really the target of your frustration.

As for OSS codecs, there are always going to someting out there, that even with an installable codec model that will not work and people will complain. With Win7, Microsoft took time to license and implement 99.9% of all the codecs in use by users, and still you find people complain that donkeyXYZ isn't there.

I have no idea what the final plan is for IE9, as I don't know that Microsoft even knows.

What I do know is that Microsoft has stated they are supporting H.264, but nothing about exclusively. I also know that if you look at Silverlight, it was one of the major design goals for the lastest releases to be completely codec agnostic and allow virtually any codec support on the fly based on what the content provider is wanting to use. So I would probably assume that this is also what Microsoft would prefer for HTML5 as well, especially when H.264 is a competing codec to their WMV/VC1 codec.

cybertimber2008 said,
Bypass Beta 2? Errr.....

Bad Idea to bypass Beta 2, Microsoft.
Especially if you're scheduling IE10 on the year 2017!!!

Get everything right now! Corporate Admins are slow to adopt new versions of IE, and you still have work to do catching up with Chrome and Firefox in terms of customizability and add-ons.