Battle for full Acid3 compliance won by Opera?
Posted by Rob Wright on 26 March 2008 - 22:10 · 66 comments & 17001 views
About the Author
Full name: Rob Wright
Forum name: Rob
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Rob Wright
Forum name: Rob
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by RAID 0 on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:13
- Let the browser war begin!
-
#1.1 Posted by Doli on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:29
- begin? Where have you been?
Its still going, most of the fighting is done by cult-like enthusiasts. You seen the sad browser support videos on YouTube, t-shirts, wallpapers, etc... -
#1.2 Posted by RAID 0 on 27 Mar 2008 - 01:23
- (Doli said @ #1.1)begin? Where have you been?
Its still going, most of the fighting is done by cult-like enthusiasts. You seen the sad browser support videos on YouTube, t-shirts, wallpapers, etc...
I was talking about the tread. :-P -
#1.3 Posted by Faisal Islam on 31 Mar 2008 - 13:44
- (RAID 0 said @ #1)Let the browser war begin!
I wonder! Opera can't open an simple Ajax* page correctly. but it won ACID3 test where IE fails.
EX: Gmail, Windows Live Mail etc
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by X'tyfe on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:21
- this is good news, hopefully we will soon others doing so
-
#2.1 Posted by excalpius on 27 Mar 2008 - 06:17
- Can anyone explain to me why anyone, I mean anyone at all, would care about this? I'm asking seriously.
-
(10 replies)
#3 Posted by
sanctified on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:30
- Again, until its not released its meaningless.
-
#3.1 Posted by Kushan on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:33
- (sanctified said @ #3)Again, until its not released its meaningless.
It's not released right now so does it have meaning? -
#3.2 Posted by markjensen on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:35
- It is completely without meaning, even though they have had their coders working on this until they hit the 100% mark?
"Not trying" is meaningless. Putting out the effort has great meaning. Perhaps not practical until released to the public, but please don't dismiss their efforts in their entirety.
*disclaimer: I am not an Opera user. Nor am I entirely convinced that ACID testing is the most accurate way to tell the best browser. It is just a single benchmarking tool. -
#3.3 Posted by Eis on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:35
- Assuming you screwed up by saying "not" released sanctified, that's bull****. Why wouldn't it matter?
-
#3.4 Posted by sanctified on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:35
- (Kushan said @ #3.1)(sanctified said @ #3)Again, until its not released its meaningless.
It's not released right now so does it have meaning?
Sorry, double negation, until its released its meaningless. -
#3.5 Posted by Rob on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:37
- Thanks for prompting me - I'd started to redraft with this point but got distracted. Amended article.
-
#3.6 Posted by sanctified on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:39
- (Eis said @ #3.3)Assuming you screwed up by saying "not" released sanctified, that's bull****. Why wouldn't it matter?
1.- Because the number indicator can display 100 despite other rendering errors.
2.- That could as well be the reference page.
As a whole we cant determine the results properly without a public build, even many members at the opera forums said that the real challenge is: "Who will release a public version: Opera or Webkit?" -
#3.7 Posted by sanctified on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:43
- (markjensen said @ #3.2)It is completely without meaning, even though they have had their coders working on this until they hit the 100% mark?
"Not trying" is meaningless. Putting out the effort has great meaning. Perhaps not practical until released to the public, but please don't dismiss their efforts in their entirety.
*disclaimer: I am not an Opera user. Nor am I entirely convinced that ACID testing is the most accurate way to tell the best browser. It is just a single benchmarking tool.
Im not dismissing their efforts mark, I just say that we need something more concrete than a screenshot. -
#3.8 Posted by +Beastage on 26 Mar 2008 - 23:33
- (sanctified said @ #3.7)(markjensen said @ #3.2)It is completely without meaning, even though they have had their coders working on this until they hit the 100% mark?
"Not trying" is meaningless. Putting out the effort has great meaning. Perhaps not practical until released to the public, but please don't dismiss their efforts in their entirety.
*disclaimer: I am not an Opera user. Nor am I entirely convinced that ACID testing is the most accurate way to tell the best browser. It is just a single benchmarking tool.
Im not dismissing their efforts mark, I just say that we need something more concrete than a screenshot.
Seriously dude... those are Opera's developers posting that not some leaked opera build on some chinese website -
#3.9 Posted by sanctified on 26 Mar 2008 - 23:34
- (Beastage said @ #3.
(sanctified said @ #3.7)(markjensen said @ #3.2)It is completely without meaning, even though they have had their coders working on this until they hit the 100% mark?
"Not trying" is meaningless. Putting out the effort has great meaning. Perhaps not practical until released to the public, but please don't dismiss their efforts in their entirety.
*disclaimer: I am not an Opera user. Nor am I entirely convinced that ACID testing is the most accurate way to tell the best browser. It is just a single benchmarking tool.
Im not dismissing their efforts mark, I just say that we need something more concrete than a screenshot.
Seriously dude... those are Opera's developers posting that not some leaked opera build on some chinese website
So, you believe everything you read I suppose.
Well, that works for you I guess.
Believe me, when I see a public build I will be the first to congratulate them. -
#3.10 Posted by Eis on 27 Mar 2008 - 01:21
- (sanctified said @ #3.9)(Beastage said @ #3.(sanctified said @ #3.7)(markjensen said @ #3.2)It is completely without meaning, even though they have had their coders working on this until they hit the 100% mark?
"Not trying" is meaningless. Putting out the effort has great meaning. Perhaps not practical until released to the public, but please don't dismiss their efforts in their entirety.
*disclaimer: I am not an Opera user. Nor am I entirely convinced that ACID testing is the most accurate way to tell the best browser. It is just a single benchmarking tool.
Im not dismissing their efforts mark, I just say that we need something more concrete than a screenshot.
Seriously dude... those are Opera's developers posting that not some leaked opera build on some chinese website
So, you believe everything you read I suppose.
Well, that works for you I guess.
Believe me, when I see a public build I will be the first to congratulate them.
Now you're just being argumentative. Saying that because he believes what the Opera developers say about their own program and saying he would believe everything he reads is just a ludicrous comparison.
-
(3 replies)
#4 Posted by Kushan on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:33
- Nothing wrong with a bit of friendly competition, especially if it benefits everyone =D
Now come on Mozilla, get your arses in gear! -
#4.1 Posted by RyanVM on 26 Mar 2008 - 23:36
- Problem is, just like back in the day when Acid2 was released, Acid3 was released at the end of a major Gecko release cycle when it's too late to make big changes without significantly delaying the next release. Don't expect big advances on Mozilla Acid3 compliance until the Gecko 2.0 (Fx4 or whatever the next major release is called) timeframe.
-
#4.2 Posted by RyanVM on 27 Mar 2008 - 03:25
- Oh, and FWIW, a fair number of the outstanding Gecko Acid3 bugs actually have patches posted to them ready for review and landing after Firefox 3 is released, so expect the score for nightlies to start jumping again after that release.
-
#4.3 Posted by Cryton on 27 Mar 2008 - 16:04
- Mozilla's Shaver blogs: the missed opportunity of acid 3, a pretty interesting read about the race to acid3 compliance.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by Islander on 26 Mar 2008 - 22:40
- Well, the last time I used Opera it was not able to correctly render a <select>-tag, and I had to program lots of extra lines in order to get it to work correctly. That is, on a XHTML 1.1 strict validated page.
So, what sense does it make if it passes that freaking test, but fails at basics ?
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by Neoauld on 26 Mar 2008 - 23:04
- too bad itll still load a chunk of pages crooked when firefox doesnt
winning acid3 doesnt meant a whole lot -
#6.1 Posted by +TCLN Ryster on 26 Mar 2008 - 23:56
- How do you know those "chunk of pages" aren't at fault themselves?
Perhaps the pages are faulty and Firefox is merely more tolerant of bad code than Opera?
Got any examples? -
#6.2 Posted by dev on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:22
- (TCLN Ryster said @ #6.1)How do you know those "chunk of pages" aren't at fault themselves?
Perhaps the pages are faulty and Firefox is merely more tolerant of bad code than Opera?
Got any examples?
considering the fully released version of firefox (v2) doesn't even pass the acid2 test, i'd go with the opera renderings over the firefox ones
-
#7 Posted by HalcyonX12 on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:10
- Congrats to the Opera team! It's nice to see all browsers working toward improving the web experience at such a brisk pace, it's nice to see the competition. With Opera, Safari, Firefox, and IE, there are lots of choices on all platforms, and even mobile offerings.
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by ThaCrip on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:32
- who cares.... Firefox 3 is clearly much better at memory management than Firefox 2 was... and those test are more or less for 'future' stuff right?
nothing to really worry about. -
#8.1 Posted by tsupersonic on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:40
- uhh lol. What does Firefox have to do with this story?
/waits for a web developer to destroy ThaCrip's comment.
Congrats to the Opera team. I'm liking the 9.5 beta. -
#8.2 Posted by sanctified on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:44
- (ThaCrip said @ #who cares.... Firefox 3 is clearly much better at memory management than Firefox 2 was... and those test are more or less for 'future' stuff right?
nothing to really worry about.
So you are saying that some memory management with some systems its more important than stablishing a standard for the web?
-
#9 Posted by solardog on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:36
- Opera has been the best for a long time now. ..IMO, but Im right.
-
#10 Posted by Black.Mac on 27 Mar 2008 - 00:48
- To bad its UI is a total crap shoot. and It cant get market share to save its life, (I think it was BARELY beating out Netscape last I saw)
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by Tikitiki on 27 Mar 2008 - 01:00
- I don't think these ACID tests actually mean much in complete compatibility. People think if it passes ACID 2, 3 that a correctly coded page will render 100%. That's simply not the case, and I can tell you this from current experiences. I have a page that is completely 100% XHTML 1.1 valid and valid CSS and Opera screws up while Firefox and IE work perfectly fine. Doesn't that seem oddly ironic considering Opera is supposed to be the best in this field?
Granted I'm not running the latest nightly build of Opera, that doesn't change the fact that I still won't have to write workarounds for compatibility.
The problem turned out that Opera messes up it's internal width values for liquid columns (in a table) when a class is added via Javascript and it takes up extra space that wasn't assigned to the column that the class was added onto. -
#11.1 Posted by Jugalator on 27 Mar 2008 - 09:56
- (Tikitiki said @ #11)I have a page that is completely 100% XHTML 1.1 valid and valid CSS and Opera screws up while Firefox and IE work perfectly fine. Doesn't that seem oddly ironic considering Opera is supposed to be the best in this field?
IE 7 doesn't support XHTML 1.1 well since it doesn't support the proper MIME type without using hacks. On IE, web servers normally have to be configured to send the XHTML page as HTML for IE to not try to render the whole page as a raw text document, and then you could just as well be using HTML 4.01 because you'd be violating the spec in this case. That's why using XHTML is considered harmful and to follow the specs without restorting to hacks, people would probably normally have to stick with HTML 4.01.
Here's more info on this subject:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faqWhy is it disallowed to send XHTML 1.1 documents as text/html?
XHTML 1.1 is pure XML, and only intended to be XML. It cannot reliably be sent to legacy browsers. Therefore XHTML 1.1 documents must be sent with an XML-related media type, such as application/xhtml+xml.Does Microsoft Internet Explorer accept the media type application/xhtml+xml?
No. However, there is a trick that allows you to serve XHTML1.0 documents to Internet Explorer as application/xml.
Last edited by Jugalator on 27 Mar 2008 - 10:02 -
#11.2 Posted by Tikitiki on 29 Mar 2008 - 05:40
- (Jugalator said @ #11.1)(Tikitiki said @ #11)I have a page that is completely 100% XHTML 1.1 valid and valid CSS and Opera screws up while Firefox and IE work perfectly fine. Doesn't that seem oddly ironic considering Opera is supposed to be the best in this field?
IE 7 doesn't support XHTML 1.1 well since it doesn't support the proper MIME type without using hacks. On IE, web servers normally have to be configured to send the XHTML page as HTML for IE to not try to render the whole page as a raw text document, and then you could just as well be using HTML 4.01 because you'd be violating the spec in this case. That's why using XHTML is considered harmful and to follow the specs without restorting to hacks, people would probably normally have to stick with HTML 4.01.
Here's more info on this subject:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faqWhy is it disallowed to send XHTML 1.1 documents as text/html?
XHTML 1.1 is pure XML, and only intended to be XML. It cannot reliably be sent to legacy browsers. Therefore XHTML 1.1 documents must be sent with an XML-related media type, such as application/xhtml+xml.Does Microsoft Internet Explorer accept the media type application/xhtml+xml?
No. However, there is a trick that allows you to serve XHTML1.0 documents to Internet Explorer as application/xml.
My mistake. It is XHTML 1.0 Transitional which I do believe works fine with IE 7.
Either way, my point still stands.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by +Beastage on 27 Mar 2008 - 01:59
- "the Apple guys track me down and point out that there's yet another bug in the test"
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1206578003&count=1
There you have it, acid3 is a sham, explains how webkit scores so high... Apple people finding bugs in the test... what a joke! -
#12.1 Posted by +imis on 27 Mar 2008 - 02:33
- (Beastage said @ #12)"the Apple guys track me down and point out that there's yet another bug in the test"
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1206578003&count=1
There you have it, acid3 is a sham, explains how webkit scores so high... Apple people finding bugs in the test... what a joke!
+1
-
(3 replies)
#13 Posted by shockz on 27 Mar 2008 - 02:22
- The fact that all these browsers are close to 100% in only a week or two shows you that must not be that many differences between acid2 vs 3 in the way the browser engine renders.
It took forever to get most browsers to render acid 2 let alone 3... so acid 3 honestly doesn't impress me as much. -
#13.1 Posted by eAi on 27 Mar 2008 - 03:37
- Acid3 has focused on a wider range of things. It requires many new features such as SVG and web fonts that will make a massive difference to the internet in the future. If all the browsers support CSS, SVG and web fonts properly, web developers' lives will be made considerably easier and you'll have better looking web pages.
-
#13.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 27 Mar 2008 - 04:31
- Acid3 is brilliant. We've seen browsers scrambling to get attention by trying to support it, which results in a better web browsing experience for users. Just because we have two browsers working hard on supporting it does not make the test any less valid - Firefox and IE are still lagging far behind.
-
#13.3 Posted by Tikitiki on 29 Mar 2008 - 05:43
- (theyarecomingforyou said @ #13.2)Acid3 is brilliant. We've seen browsers scrambling to get attention by trying to support it, which results in a better web browsing experience for users. Just because we have two browsers working hard on supporting it does not make the test any less valid - Firefox and IE are still lagging far behind.
I agree ACID is pretty good. But it seems to be a marketing scheme by browsers now a days, which still are riddled with other issues that affect us developers just as much
-
#14 Posted by ajua on 27 Mar 2008 - 02:58
- as long as the browsers of choice out there display pages right, this acid tests are really meaningless. much like some of the certification that antivirus programs get because they use default settings and some developers choose to tweak their defaults for increased security instead of focusing on certificates.
but, nonetheless, this acid tests will help developers get the standards right more quickly and we all can benefit.
-
#15 Posted by Andy-Roo on 27 Mar 2008 - 03:50
- I just downloaded the latest WebKit nightly, and it gets 100%.
It's the first publicly-available browser to get 100% in the test. I don't think Opera won this round.
-
#16 Posted by thenewbf on 27 Mar 2008 - 03:51
- WebKit nightly is at 99% now. Just missing the blue box.
Edit: Scratch that, after emptying the cache and reloading, it gets 100%.
-
(2 replies)
#17 Posted by Hak Foo on 27 Mar 2008 - 04:08
- I'd be a hell of a lot more interested in Webkit, if it came in the form of a Windows browser.
For what good it may do, Safari is hardly a Windows browser. It's a MacOS app in look and feel clumsily dropped in the middle of Windows. It reminds me of the old X11 days, before GTK+ and similar popular toolkits, where every application looked completely different. Although, at least, the font rendering was the same across apps (aside from a few doozies like TeXmacs, which did it differently for a reason) -
#17.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 27 Mar 2008 - 05:36
- Exactly. Safari is simply a terrible browser - at least on Windows. It would be nice to see a proper Windows frontend released for Webkit, as then it could rival Firefox and Opera.
-
#17.2 Posted by The_Decryptor on 27 Mar 2008 - 06:53
- The problem, is that the windows port of Safari links to certain closed source libraries, so nobody else can make a windows app that uses the windows port of WebKit.
Luckily, there is a sub-port in the works that replaces the closed source stuff with open source stuff (Cairo instead of CoreGraphics and cURL instead of the networking stuff)
Cairo is LGPL (like WebKit) and cURL is MIT, So there shouldn't be any problems with using them in closed source apps.
-
(2 replies)
#19 Posted by Quick Reply on 27 Mar 2008 - 06:54
- Webkit blog:
With r31342 WebKit has become the first publicly available rendering engine to achieve 100/100 on Acid3. The final test, test 79, was a brutal torture test of SVG text rendering. Details of the bugs we fixed will follow. Indeed, we found a critical bug in the test itself that would have forced a violation of the SVG 1.1 standard to pass, so until a few hours ago it was not possible to get a valid 100/100. Acid3 test editor Ian Hickson has the details.
So it only took them a few hours after the bug in the test was fixed for them to finally get 100/100, and then 5 hours after that released a pixel-perfect version.
So 8 hours after the final test has been rectified.... that is very fast. Opera haven't even released thier passing browser to proove that it is in fact pixel perfect. I think Webkit won. May even be a draw if Opera proove that they did it. -
#19.1 Posted by Unto Darkness on 27 Mar 2008 - 07:21
- Am I missing something? I have just downloaded the latest copy of the Webkit nightly build and it only scores 99/100.
note: I am running Windows XP but that shouldn't be a problem.
-
#21 Posted by Jugalator on 27 Mar 2008 - 09:41
- As Opera said, it did 100/100, but there are still some minor issues remaining for them to resolve.
A 100% pass doesn't have to mean everything is there, I believe there's a color animation that has to be "smooth" for example, which doesn't show up in a screenshot, for one thing.
But both the Opera and Safari teams have made excellent jobs here!
If I were to pick today, it'd have to be 1) Firefox 3, 2) Opera 9.5, 3) Safari 3.1. Firefox at my first spot because of great extensions and the excellent memory usage and speed nowadays. Its customization AND performance is hard to beat. Additionally, Acid3 is not yet a major downside as websites won't be designed for this until IE supports the standards well, which won't even come in IE 8. That browser will do Acid2, which Firefox 3 also does.
Opera coming second for everything you get out of the box in a leaner install than Firefox's without extensions, and also being very fast and with great memory usage. Safari coming last because of its speed that also seem to rival the best, but consuming way too much memory on Windows at least to be comfortable after long sessions, and lacking even Opera's integrated adblocking support, as well as failing Windows UI guidelines miserably. :-( Yes, I know it's branding, but that doesn't make it less of a problem in some areas.
Last edited by Jugalator on 27 Mar 2008 - 09:48
-
(2 replies)
#22 Posted by Slugsie on 27 Mar 2008 - 09:45
- Whoo hoo. Colour me 'who gives a ****!'
The Acid tests are an artificial test. They mean nothing. What counts is can your browser display the pages that you want it to display? Nothing else matters.
(FF and IE user) -
#22.1 Posted by Magallanes on 27 Mar 2008 - 12:48
- Agreed, a browser can pass acid3 at 100% but still unable to a proper render of real pages, i.e. Safari, Opera and in some cases firefox.
-
#22.2 Posted by The_Decryptor on 27 Mar 2008 - 13:28
- Which is why standards support matters.
You know, that allows browsers to render pages properly.
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by C_Guy on 27 Mar 2008 - 14:44
- Since when are these 'Acid' tests the "only" benchmark for a web browser? I tried Opera and didn't like it so whether it passes an Acid test means nothing to me as it means nothing to most people using a web browser.
Here's the thing: If it displays the page properly (and I have yet to see any page in IE not display properly, all but one in FireFox displays correctly) then who cares??? -
#23.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 27 Mar 2008 - 18:28
- I have seen plenty of pages not display properly in IE as I have designed websites before... these pages then have to be botched to render properly, without breaking functionality in browsers with better standards support (like Opera and Firefo
. IE is still terrible when it comes to rendering pages. I whole heartedly congratulate the Opera developers for trying to improve the web experience and making designing web pages more straightforward. I like Opera but there are still some niggles that prevent me from using it as my default browser (not being able to drag pictures from the browser into a folder, for instance).
-
(1 reply)
#24 Posted by Hidr0 on 27 Mar 2008 - 20:34
not sure why but it crash all the time...
Vista Ultimate Sp1 Final
Opera 9.26
-
#25 Posted by thedarkavenger on 27 Mar 2008 - 21:32
- So opera is still fail: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1206578003&count=1
Webkit > *
Goodnight!
-
#26 Posted by :No-Frost: on 27 Mar 2008 - 21:40
- GO for it Opera!!!!
I belive that they got thatscore using 9.5 version of opera...
-
#27 Posted by cooldude7273 on 28 Mar 2008 - 03:07
- "Wooooohhhoooooooo... I have a car that can go 500mph!!!!! Too bad all the speed limits are set at 35mph"
-
#28 Posted by PrEzi on 29 Mar 2008 - 10:29
- http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/03/28/
Opera compiled for ACID3 test - publicly avaliable.
Acid3 is a test page from the Web Standards Project designed to check the compliance of a web browser to various DOM and javascript standards. Different browser manufacturers place varying amounts of importance on passing the tests in their nightly builds, but today Opera announced they have passed the full compliment of tests for the first time.
Previously the race had been expected to be won by WebKit, the rendering engine behind Safari with a current score of 98%; on the Surfin' Safari blog, daily updates of the edge towards passing each test had been given much to the anticipation of web developers.
It should be noted, however, that Opera's announcement has not been verified by the wider community as their preview build is not available for testing. Conversely, nightly builds of WebKit are freely downloadable for developers to test at their leisure.
Nightly builds of Firefox currently score 71%, while Internet Explorer 8 beta trails behind with 18% compliance.