Neowin.net

i lol'd

lol to that too

The most funny part is when you downlaod it,and find out it is true!

Then i'm the one who laughs his ass off

Don't forget IE8 was the first browser to pass ACID 2.

i hope your joking

I just tried out ACID2 test using Opera 9.26 and it passes perfectly.

Link: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/

Don't forget IE8 was the first last browser crapware to pass Acid2...

When will Firefox do?
And I'm not loling.

a) No it wasn't.
b) No it didn't unless you altered the original code so that IE8 would render in standards mode also known as the Kobayashi Maru cheat. Now, if it truly does render in standards mode unless told / realises otherwise it will pass without hacking.

Oh, you mean that Year old news?

That's the best way I've heard it described.

lol[/quote]
When will Firefox do?
And I'm not loling.[/quote]

I'm using Firefox 3b3 and it passes Acid2.

Acid 2 compliance != standards compliance.

Heck, Acid 3 compliance != standards compliance.

Most likely, IE 8 will fail here too, as will Firefox 3.

Seriously, it's very very hard to be 100% standards compliant. First one probably need to mention what "standard" one is talking about (HTML 4.0? 5.0?, XHTML 1.0/1.1/2.0?, CSS2/3?), but even then, all you can hope for is an as close vision as W3C had when writing the specs and using the de facto treatment of the standard in the cases of ambiguities in the W3C documentation.

No, this means it will be in Standard-complaint mode by default. If it's going to be standards-complaint, we'll have to wait, but try checking IE's criminal history.

See Quirks mode and try seeing when Internet Explorer was in Standards compliant mode.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2#Non-com...nt_applications

And Darken wins.



Not really. If a browser is standards compliant, it should handle the errors in that page correctly. That's the purpose of the test.

Last edited by Azmodan on 04 Mar 2008 - 14:09

Safari (Mac) also rendered the page correctly too.

"Safari was the first web browser to pass the test, with the passing version 2.02 released on October 31, 2005." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2

Opera 9 was next I think, and various konqueror builds, then firefox (I can't remember if v2 passes any more, v3 has for a looong time).

Unless of course you simply mean it'll be the first Microsoft browser to pass.

You are wrong. If a browser does not pass the test it's non compliant. If it passes, it doesn't mean it's compliant.

If it passes the test, it doesn't means it's standards compliant because it's not a full test, not every single parameter released by the W3C is in that test, AFAIK. But if it doesn't makes the cut then it can't be standards compliant. But a browser that is standards compliant should render that page properly, like described in the screenshot. How comes I'm wrong?

Still waiting for those ultimate extras too appear. I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar from suckers users that bought Vista Ultimate.

Say that to Almighty Mozilla Corporation.
They claim standard compliance, but refuse to fix rendering bugs for.... 8 years. 8 years of active feedback/whines/suggestions.

This sounds like a good idea to me, although it would probably make the browser bloated and might encourage people to just always use the IE6 mode. Especially since Vista can't run IE6 without running XP in a virtual machine. Maybe the better solution would be to offer a stand-alone virtual machine/sandboxed IE6 that only works if you install IE8. This could solve the business side problem where companies use crap intranet web apps that only work with IE6 while making sure that everyone moves to IE8.

All the improvements in IE7 have been quite useless for the web developer because IE6 is still so widely used.

This is how MySpaces should be properly displayed: http://www.tecnoware.com/newsimg/blank.gif

Again, it's not what you think it is. A browser that renders all pages the way it's supposed to be it's almost impossible and I doubt Internet Explorer 8 will do the job.

Or they should at least have an epilepsy warning and a disclaimer about rampant bad taste, poor design, and unreadability.

Let them,ignorance is blisss

would you care to offer an example of praise? not that I see MS in a completely negative light, but they certainly have been slow in the implementation of web standards.

Long has some on his blog - here.

This is why I think customization can make such a big difference. Here's my comparison with IE7 and FF2.



Everything sits in one bar with tabs as the second bar. It's not cluttered at all either, heck I got the url for this comment page taking up half the address bar in FF, so nothing is being cut off either.

Too young? 16 year old disagrees

That's as a result of code and irrespective of the browser. If an image doesn't have width and height attributes the HTML will load and start rendering then the image will be retrieved. As the browser doesn't know the dimensions of the image it can default to a certain size (say 320 x 200 or width-of-box-containing-alt-text-and-an-x-in-a-box-icon) and then reset when the dimensions are known (parsing the image file to find the dimension data)
Or, layouts can cause rerendering: if a third column (that is positioned right) is retrieved late, or even by AJAX, existing content can fill the width of the browser window and then get squashed once the third column content is parsed.

Netscape 4 would do exactly the same thing. Back then images always tended to have dimensions set as attributes so you wouldn't get content jump. As they aren't strictly necessary unless you're constraining not having them lowers the pagesize.

I don't know how IE8 has gotten, but IE7 only gets 5/100 on my WinXP SP2 machine. Safari 3.04 gets 39/100; Opera receives 46/100; Firefox 3 Beta 3 renders with 59/100 (way to go Mozilla on the already >50% compliant, especially with a beta release).

I can't wait to see how the next public releases (including any official betas, not nightly builds) of each browser will fair.

That's my point. If Microsoft wants any respect with the web commutated then they will need to pass the Acid3 test before anyone else. If they do that then IE10 will be respect my the dev people.

Is there actually any browser that passes this test?

no, not yet, and it will probably take them a few more years to pass

Oh NOES!!!!
Firefox is NOT standards compliant?? They lied to me.
Mozilla Corporation lied to everyone to grab money.

WebKit/Safari Nightly builds get 87/100.

http://nightly.webkit.org/

IE will find it hard to pass Acid3 as it doesn't support SVG which is a key aspect of the test.

Well I'm sure if you've kept your Firefox purchase receipt, Mozilla will give you your money back!!
Really, every reply you've made in this news post is you bitching and whining and moaning about Firefox. We all get it, you don't like Mozilla and Firefox. Since you have nothing constructive to say, and in fact you say one thing over and over, why bother posting?

The problem is people say that IE is non-standard and Firefox is standards-compliant. That's false.
I can just call that people fools and go ahead. But when Mozilla Corporation pushes it's crapware using this lie, I feel I need to let people know they are sheep.

IE wasn't designed to the standards - why do you think they're having so many problems now they're changing to follow the standards more accurately? Before, MS took the standards as a starting point then implemented their own crazy version of parts of them, including adding things that weren't in the spec and badly implementing others (and then not fixing their bad implementation because they were the dominant force and didn't need to).

And now look at things. Other browsers are here that say "we will follow the spec no matter what" and such browsers mis-render markup written for IE.

A browser that follows the standards does not say "We have implemented everything in the spec", it says "that which we implement will be according to the spec". In this way, Firefox is standards-compliant - Mozilla don't make up stuff as they go along, and they fix bugs in their layout engine when it doesn't do what the spec says it should.

Yes, sometimes it may take years to get such bugs fixed, but Mozilla are not saying "We don't like the spec so this is what we're doing instead", they are saying "there are shortcoming in our engine because it does not render according to how the spec says it should render. We will fix this when it is practical to do so."

Microsoft's IE team now appears to be on the compliance bandwagon in that they are now trying their best to follow the standards, where as before they didn't really care for them. This can only be great for the internet. The standards that make the web should be free to all, platform-agnostic, and not owned by a company with interest in keeping people using its OS and its browser product.

Anyone, on any platform, should be able to see the standards and write their own web-browser. In the past people couldn't do this because IE owned the market, didn't follow the standards accurately, and didn't document how they differed from the standards. So if you wanted your page to look right, you had to write your page with a MS authoring tool and then use an MS browser to view it.

But now with everyone wanting to follow standards, everything gets documented and everyone is on a level playing field and the internet is a freer place to work in.

If you don't like Firefox or Mozilla, that's your call. But they've single-handedly given the whole internet a kick in the pants, they've got the IE team re-assembled and IE back in development (after what - 5 years of stagnation?), and they've done it all by setting standards-compliance as their objective.

Sorry, but they are. Mozilla developers are saying web standards are "only recomendations" and they can break them if they want. You don't believe me? Look at their own bug tracker https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
It's painful to see how the spreading plague of Firefox breaks the future of the data rich web.
It's sad to see how developers are forced to suck Mozilla's d*ck for 8 years without any mercy.

That's what many of them say now.

I don't understand. The XSL Transformations (XSLT) is quite clear isn't it? Section 16.4 Disabling Output Escaping says "An XSLT processor is not required to support disabling output escaping.", so this section is optional. In fact, according to bug 98168 comment 1, "we could completely ignore [all of] section 16 (and that would not be incorrect behaviour)".

The fact that an optional section of the recommendations hasn't been implemented doesn't mean Firefox isn't standards compliant...

Opera 9.50 beta build 9815 gets a score of 64/100, so it appears to be ahead of Mozilla.

You're too quickly to judge. And you are wrong.
XSLT standard defines 3 output types: text, html and xml. Firefox' flawed proprietary transformer supports only xml.
Thy ARE violationg the standard.
No other browser broke the standard as clear amd simple as XSLT.
And... aren't you impressed of the amount begging and answers? 2001 seems to be so far away...

Now you're changing your beef with Firefox. First it was the <xsl:text disable-output-escaping="yes"> not working bug. But since such a thing is optional, not a requirement, you're changing your mind that the reason why you don't like firefox is because "Firefox' flawed proprietary transformer supports only xml."

Let's take a look at section 17 Conformance: "A conforming XSLT processor must be able to use a stylesheet to transform a source tree into a result tree as specified in this document. A conforming XSLT processor need not be able to output the result in XML or in any other form."

So, again, you are wrong.

Also, how can something that is open-source and free for anyone to examine and use be 'proprietary'? It's the exact polar opposite of proprietary really.

Standards?
That no single program supports? Don't make me laugh.

Yes, but at least everyone else tries... If everyone is on the same map it does help things...

Tries? For many that's just marketing.

And even better, the ones it doesn't work for will be fixed to work and this will benefit Firefox, Safari and Opera.

That is backwards IMO. You kind of make sure your site works with a browser that is broken and non-compliant and then make sure it works in those that do work. In my experience it's faster to make sure that doing things the right way works and then break it to make it work in IE6.

Definitely. 9/10, if you get Firefox and/or Opera correct, then IE7 (and nearly all other non-IE browsers) will be correct. Then usually it is just a few bits that need specific styles for IE6 and below. Usually isn't much in my experience (extra gaps, etc).

They can't do this because this would literally break the web for the majority of people.
Rob, I can't wait to hear your opinion!

I agree! More OS support the better.

1) As Emil Protalinski said, it would break the Web for too many people.
2) IE7 wasn't released for Windows 2000, so why would IE8 be released for Windows 2000?

I wouldn't mind the final release being listed as a "critical" update. However, to call it "critical" wouldn't quite be right, in my opinion. After all, what security issues would it fix?

The "this is a browser that doesn't have that poxy 'Click to activate' rubbish on embedded objects that we foisted on everybody, regardless of location, because we were contesting the Eolas patent issue" issue. Come to think of it, where's the undo patch for the "critical" patch that added this incredibly annoying (to both developers and users) "functionality"? It can't be that hard to reverse a patch, after all they've done it before.

I agree, we should all switch to Silverlight 2 when it's released.

No, IE7 works fine for people who are competent at using a computer. Most of the negativity you see around IE is from anti-Microsoft fanatics who feel the need to praise Mozilla or Opera as alternatives for the sake of promoting a non-Microsoft solution.

I suppose actually trying IE and making a rational judgement is too much to ask.

No one in the article EVER mentioned Internet Explorer will be 100% standards compliant, they mentioned it will run in a standards-compliant mode, unlike Quirks (Quirks can be enabled with a meta tag, which isn't starndards compliants!.

It's been the typical neowininan that's been saying "OMG NOW IE WILL ROX OVER FIREFAX B/COS IT WILL RENDER ALL PAGES PROPERLY, EVEN ACID3 LOLZ"

IE7 still has some problems. Not that many but some. I find myself having to write a few lines of IE7 specific fixes for most websites I do. By comparison, for IE6 I have to rewrite a large portion of a site's CSS and JavaScript. While to the user these differences may be visible only as slightly more padding or margin in some areas, to the developer these are stuff that you shouldn't have to do in the first place if everyone had just upgraded to IE7 when it came.

I still think IE7 isn't that great a browser though. I like the UI, it's nice and compact but the way IE tends to stop loading pages randomly (hitting F5 instantly loads the page) at times is kinda annoying and going back and forth between pages is lightyears behind Opera.

Anyway, to summarize: IE7 is far from perfect. It still doesn't support some CSS2 stuff and renders some things wrong.

There's no good reason why a site (that has been updated to render properly in IE7) should have any issues in IE8 if the developer was worth anything. If all that was done was to kludge together some code that isn't correctly targeted at IE7 only then the client should get their money back or get the site fixed properly for free (adding the render-in-IE7-mode tag shouldn't count!

A lot of the Vista incompatibility issues with software were the result of bad coding, but I'm sure you remember how that turned out and who got blamed.