Slashdot Mirror

But the number of websites which works in Firefox and Chrome but not Edge, is so big....

Strange... because currently the latest version of Edge is actually one point ahead of Firefox in terms of html standards compliance, and the upcoming version only one point behind.

Edge's javascript compliance with ES6 currently trails behind Firefox and Chrome, with almost all of it's inferiority being here. and here. These parts of Javascript are not, in practice, that significant. I won't say they are nothing, but they are still quite far removed from being needed in most cases.

I find it dubious that there are that many significant websites which would not work with Edge while working fine with another browser like Firefox unless they were specifically designed to be hostile to Edge. You may be able to find a few, but I am skeptical that the number is, as you say, "so big".

Hmmmm ... It does not look like Edge is more compliant.

https://html5test.com/results/...

http://html5test.com/results/d...

You mean like web standards? Where Edge continues to make strides and already ranks better than Safari?

FYI: I think the parent used https://html5test.com/

However I am curious. Chrome, seems to score highest on the HTML5 Compatibility Test, compared to other browsers.

From the HTML5 Compatibility Test

Chrome 63.0.3239.108 (Official Build) (64-bit) the score is 528
Firefox 57.0.1 (64-bit) the score is 483
QupZilla Application version 2.2.3, QtWebEngine version 5.9.2 the score is 517
The above I have running on my Fedora 27 distribution.

From the HTML5 Compatibility Test site, they say that the following:
Opera is 518
Edge is 476
Safari is 406

It must be noted that you should look at what the scores actually mean since there are groupings such as "Elements", "Video", "Audio", "2D Graphics", "Security" just to name a few. If you care to look you will find that some features are proprietary and in the case of Chrome and Firefox are not supported while if you look at Edge some proprietary features are supported. A very good example of this falls under the "Streaming" category.

That being said, usually services are designed to work with other browsers and keeping features a bit behind, as to support the general population. Telling people to use chrome is bad form.

You are quite right most browsers support what can be considered common services, however, what is wrong "telling/informing" other people about Chrome, aren't people allowed to have opinions and express them in a none violent way?

How are any of your posts moderated over zero? Safari was last updated a couple days ago. There was even a Slashdot post last week that discussed how some advertising firms were upset because the latest Safari blocks cookies that track users across multiple sites.

Yep which is why even Microsoft scores higher than safari and until recently scored on par with IE!

Outside of a few purists, nobody cares if their browser is compliant with the HTML5 standard. I'm guessing most people who use browsers these days wouldn't even know that means, let alone have a clue if their browser complied. In fact, quickly checking my own browser at https://html5test.com/index.ht... indicates that Firefox 55 on Windows 10 is only MOSTLY supporting it. And it looks like very few browsers will even intend to support the whole standard.

Pale Moon 27.1.2 got "381 out of 555 points" at https://html5test.com/.

"Access to webcam", "Screen Capture", "speech recognition", WTF? HTML5 is the security services/hackers/stalkers wet dream.

https://html5test.com/index.ht...

I don't want Firefox getting full marks, that's a bad thing.

Cite: https://html5test.com/results/...

The only thing preventing HEVC/H.265 from being supported natively in browsers is the patent license terms. The developers of x265 have made a proposal to fix this situation. See http://x265.org/proposal-accel...

The Edge browser does support H265 but surprise surprise it does not support many open formats. If you go to this site and do an intercomparison between Chrome, Firefox, Edge and your preferred browser, with particular emphasis on the Video and Audio support you can see this.

BTW. That link was an interesting read although I don't think patents are really going to stop the home user from using the particular codecs. It is surprisingly easy using tools like Handbrake (it really does hammer your PC though) to convert from one codec to another as well as converting 8bit to 10bit or even 12bit. The main reason to convert H264 to H265 is the fact that you can get a reduction in file size from 55% to 65% and in some cases much better than that, especially if you convert to 10 to 12 bits as well.

Didn't Google claim Microsoft was wrong and Edge was not better than Chrome, and now they have closed the gap?

Lovely mismatch of messages from PR and from actual engineers.

You can do the HTML5test and Chrome should get 499 (this is for Fedora 24) out of 555 compared to 485 for Microsoft's Edge browser.

Numbers don't really mean anything unless you look at the fine print and by that take a look at what each browser supports since you can do a side by side comparison of different web browsers. As an example, I am also going to use "QupZilla" (score: 480/555) which comes standard along with "Firefox" if you install Fedora 24 KDE spin.

If you do an intercomparison on what each browser supports then you will see that Chrome, Firefox and QupZilla (you can add others if you wish) all support open codex standards while Microsoft's Edge browser supports proprietary codecs and almost completely ignores open codecs. So much for Microsoft supporting open standards.

BTW. Look at what is supported for Video and Audio for all Browsers of interest and you will see exactly what each one supports.

I wish they would update Safari. According to HTML5Test, Safari's HTML5 support is worse than that of Chrome, Opera, Firefox and Edge.

but is it faster or more efficient than Edge? I mean, spartan is the render engine to beat nowadays. MicroSoft said so.

(*waits for angry mob with torches and pitchforks*)

Microsoft does have a very good PR department that can convince the gullible plebian that anything they do is for the good of their users. Sort of like the Inquisitors of old, except now they are protecting the god fearing mob (er! users) from those open source magicians who are trying to lead the faithful away from the Microsoft light..

Here is a simple test anyone can perform. Got to this site and just run their simple html5 test in the web browser of your choice. Yes even "Edge" if you are so inclined.

Ok now you have done your test click on the "compare" button and add some other browsers if you have not already run the test on them) such as "Chrome", "Firefox", "Edge", "Opera" ... etc. You should notice that Chrome get the best score with 492 compared with Edge's 473, however, that does not tell the whole picture.

Now comes the fun part: Click on "Difference" and then take a look at what codec's which browser supports such as WebM, WebP, Ogg, Video and Audio codecs. It soon becomes clear that Microsoft is going to support "proprietary codecs" at the expense of open formats while most other browsers are supporting open formats. I wonder why that is?

I can't help it.. So, it comes with free beer? That's the feature most of us will be interested in! Even better if it repeals tax increases on beer!

Well it's not much but if you run the html5 test , I get the following out of a possible 555 ponts. With exception of "Qupzilla" I get the same results in Fedora 23 as well.

Chrome - 501
Firefox - 478
Konqueror - 355
Qupzilla - 521 - This is a new browser in Fedora 24

It must be noted that I have only installed Fedora 24 in a virtual machine but not on my hardware yet. So far I have not seen any issues with Fedora 24 and will be installing it after I have done my due diligence such as backups and saving configuration files (normally all in /etc).

Basically, I will do what is called a full file-system installation rather than an update. It looks like all this will take: 1) About 20 minutes for the installation. 2) About 20 minutes to update all my configuration files and get some additional applications. 3) About 30 to 40 minutes for updates. By doing this I will have a nice clean install.

Even though I will have done my user backups I probably won't need them unless I make a mistake (very unlikely) since I don't reformat my user file-systems. Of course, if I do decide to reformat my user file-systems then they will take hours to recover. but even if I go down this path I will still be able to use the system but it won't be optimal until my recovery compleats.

If Microsoft ported Edge to Linux and OS X, it would absolutely destroy Firefox, in my opinion. Firefox is already barely relevant. The latest stats show Firefox only has 6% to 7% of the browser market [caniuse.com], and it has been losing users for a long time.

If Microsoft ported Edge to Linux then hell has just frozen over, although I do feel that most Linux users would prefer not using it considering that the Edge browser does what Microsoft wants not what the Linux user wants.

Many of the remaining Firefox users are using it on Linux or OS X. They aren't using FIrefox because they want to use Firefox; they're using it just because it isn't Chrome, and Firefox is really the only other option they have. Many of these users aren't happy Firefox users, either. They're disgusted by how Firefox's UI has been trashed, how so much unwanted functionality has been forced on them (Hello, Pocket, and even embedded ads!), and how Firefox still feels so much slower than Chrome.

Speak for yourself not everyone is a hater. Personally, I like the minimalistic approach of most web browsers which lets me efficiently use whatever browser is available on Linux and there are plenty available.

In a simple HTML5 test on my Fedora 23 KDE spin machine, out of a score of 555 Firefox got 478, Chrome got 501, Konqueror got 355 and Midori got 356. I could get more browsers but four is good enough. Even after running that test which shows Crome beat Firefox but Firefox was way better for that test than Konqueror or Midori. What does that test mean to me? Well nothing really, if one browser does not display what I want then I will get and/or chose another.

It is no different to me displaying a video. Personally, I normally use VLC (will play the H264 and H265 codecs as well as 10 bit) but there are some videos that are 12 bit which VLC can't display so I choose "mpv Media Player" which will. However, the interface of "mpv" is extremely minimalistic and keyboard driven compared to VLC, but that does not stop me from using it.

Basically, I choose the tools I need to get the job done. If one tool is not pretty but does what I want then I am fine with that.

Congrats, Apple! Once again, you're last to the finish line with another browser-related spec/feature/idea.

Safari was the first browser to pass the Acid2 and Acid3 tests. But more recently, Safari fell behind the other browsers in the HTML5 tests. I'm glad Apple is working on Safari again.

Even if you want to go with the most basic features of a browser. Rending HTML and CSS, no browser currently in existence supports all of them 100%. Therefore, Firefox (and any other browser) has a way to go

Good to see they are getting into the game....too bad the 'edge' browser is a piece of crap that I never use...part of the fairly lame windows 10 which I have only upgraded to on one of my 9 computers...and am now waiting for windows 11 before anything more happens.

Edge is is not a piece of crap. It also is getting more HTML 5 support in Threshhold 2 aka update 1 coming out around Halloween for WIndows 10 and will have a Chrome API for extensions including adblock.

Edge is a very good browser and I give MS kudos since IE 6 was left to rot.

Remember Firefox was once Netscape which was worse than IE 6 back in 2001!

Edge removed lots of crud which prevented IE from being agile to catch up to Chrome and Firefox. IE 11 FYI was ok. Not great but meh it worked with minimal work arounds if at all compared to the absolute nightmare of its early cousins.

Edge does lack plugins which in Threshold 2 will have a Chrome API to use adblockers and other plugings to be ported over. Give it a try on WIndows 10 and benchmark it. You maybe surprised.

As distasteful as I find DRM, at least we see Microsoft trying to improve their web browser. With Edge they're actually succeeding in creating something that average users do want to use!

Not exactly. Microsoft's Edge browser is still in fourth place in terms of being standards compliant, which is what I think average users want because it makes the browser actually compatible with modern content. Yes, it's a tad ahead of IE, but it's still quite behind Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.

http://html5test.com/results/d...

In fact most web browsers for mobile devices are doing better than Edge: It's behind Android WebView, BlackBerry's web browser, Chrome for Android, Firefox for Android, Safari for iOS, Opera Mobile, Tizen's web browser, Amazon Silk, Jolla Sailfish, and the now discontinued Nokia X browser.

http://html5test.com/results/m...

As distasteful as I find DRM, at least we see Microsoft trying to improve their web browser. With Edge they're actually succeeding in creating something that average users do want to use!

Not exactly. Microsoft's Edge browser is still in fourth place in terms of being standards compliant, which is what I think average users want because it makes the browser actually compatible with modern content. Yes, it's a tad ahead of IE, but it's still quite behind Chrome, Firefox, and Opera.

http://html5test.com/results/d...

In fact most web browsers for mobile devices are doing better than Edge: It's behind Android WebView, BlackBerry's web browser, Chrome for Android, Firefox for Android, Safari for iOS, Opera Mobile, Tizen's web browser, Amazon Silk, Jolla Sailfish, and the now discontinued Nokia X browser.

http://html5test.com/results/m...

This is in no way a complicated issue! There is no "wrenching of hands as to which way to go". There is a standards committee: w3c, also known as the world wide web consortium. And their sole purpose in life is to build standards for internet browsers, and to test the w3c compliance of those browsers. There are even tests for html5. All that is needed is to abandon the "lock-in", "incompatible" model that microsoft has plagued the computing industry with for the past 35 years (including their own software not compatible with older versions of their software), and there will be no problems.

Despite what MS fan boys keep spouting IE 11 is not really all that great, and the proof is in the compatibility numbers Somehow despite > IE 9 being "native html5" or whatever marketing bullshit Microsoft spouted, their browsers support less HTML5 features than say mobile freaking safari.

IE11 is definitely better than IE8, and IE11 is definitely better than IE9, but it's still not as good as Opera/Safari/Chrome/FF, and some of the mobile variants.

TFA is a bit fact-challenged. Safari on the iPad is not a "mobile browser" and supports HTML5 (although it could do better).

http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
Chrome score 463
Firefox score 414
Internet Explorer 10 scores 320(Internet explorer 8 XP users trapped on scores 42)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html which benchmarks the various browsers extensively gives
Firefox score 326
Chrome score of 326
Internet Explorer 182

Has been dropped in Safari 6+ None of the mainstream browsers support it. http://html5test.com/compare/feature/form-datetime-element.html

By 2014 they will be caught up to where other browsers were in 2011, for Microsoft that's pretty impressive. Usually IE is about half a decade behind real browsers.

Firefox 14 released July 17, 2012 scored 252/500 so realistically its more like 2 years of Non-Microsoft released browsers vs Microsoft unreleased browsers. there is a graph at the bottom of the page here http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html that shows the lag in Microsofts development.

IE11 scores 351/500 + 2 bonus point

Again a reasonable post marked flamebait. The quote *directly* from the summery presented the score in a preview browser as great when in reality it is pitiful. The figures are from http://html5test.com/ and the Browser I am currently rocking is Firefox 22 (A released browser) which scores 409/500 + 10 bonus points.

My opinion is like this, but less antagonistic. Developers go to three places as far as APIs are concerned:
#1. Where the money is. Sorry blackberry you missed that train. iOS or android is going to be far better in that regard.

And surprisingly you (and most everybody else) would be wrong

#2. Where it's fun. Something about business oriented phone software doesn't call me in that regard.
#3. Where it's really, really, really easy to whip out applications. Maybe, but I doubt it.

If you know C, C++, QT, HTML5, Adobe AIR, or JAVA you can code for BB 10. If you don't want to code for BB 10 specifically but you already publish apps on Android it doesn't get much easier than uploading an APK (yes there are limitations)

Not according to HTML5test.com, they aren't.

Checking caniuse.com and filtering to current browser versions shows FF18 tied with IE10 on HTML/CSS for W3C Recommendations and Proposed Recs. at 100%, with FF18 1% ahead on the Candidate Recommendations and 1% behind for Working Drafts. For the other/unofficial categories, FF18 leads IE10 by a wide margin.

Since those last two categories don't really count for much since they're subject to potentially massive changes, the best you could say is IE 10 is -almost- as compliant as the latest stable Firefox release (which is still saying something, considering how long Microsoft has been the Alabama of web standards integration...)

1. upgrading IE is free in regards to licensing, proper WSUS probably puts it at several thousand in regards to man hours at best.
2. you can't stop people from being retarded, if you don't know how to upgrade your browser from IE 6, you probably don't care about css3 shadowing on my web page either.
3. There is no compelling reason to make an intranet app follow w3c, and certain older versions of Visual Studio were well known to produce IE only friendly code that was never to standard to begin with (upper case tags ex) . An international website... a bit more compelling to do so for obvious reasons.

And just because I thought this was cool: Test your browser's HTML5 compatibility

Keep learning, you'll get it one day :)

It seems that only Firefox supports all the three free formats on mobile (if html5test is not misinforming). For some reason Chrome Mobile doesn't like Theora and Opera Mobile is missing WebM as well as Theora support. Quite sad. But one ogg-enabled mobile browser is still better than no such browser.

Please define "many browsers". Also, kudos for you if you want to contribute, just my cup of tea to work on stopgap measure when a new standard is getting supported in ALL mobile browsers and most desktop one too: http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html.

Indeed, but not all webkit browsers are equal -- not by a long shot.

Maybe. Ok so lets mock IE for other reasons. How about the ability to start up IE without it questioning me about accelerators and other ways to enhance my search experience or that automatic downloads are displayed in the most unobvious way with a little bar on the edge of the screen which is easy to miss and often leaves you wondering if a webpage / download is working at all. How about we pick Chrome due to it's ultrafast javascript performance, excellent WebGL support, or support for more than one high def video codec?

And while Microsoft is busy shouting from the rooftops that IE9 supports the canvas tag and scores 100 on Acid3, it fairs quite dismally at http://beta.html5test.com/ supporting less than half the number of points on HTML5 support than your nearest competitor safari and close to 1/4 of the points of the current leader.

Also what's with not showing an SSL page as secure by colour code if you have self signed certificate which is otherwise trusted by the system? Makes me do a double take every time to see if I am actually visiting an encrypted page or not.

There's many reasons other than security for not using IE.

Sigh... I give you facts, you ignore them. Oh, well. You just can't reason with some people.

Of course, I guess if you don't mind downloading an app for every site you use and don't mind losing access to thousands of video and music sites and not being able to play hundreds of thousands of games, and are okay with losing out on the advanced features on sites that use Flash to make up for the deficiencies in current web standards, then that's cool. I'll keep watching all the video that you don't have access to and I'll happily listen to streaming podcasts and music on sites pandora and grooveshark without needing to install a useless app.

Honestly, it takes some serious denial to believe that Flash is irrelevant to the web today.

I know Steve said that HTML 5 is the future, still, you'd think that with Apples supposed commitment to HTML 5 that they could do at least as good as RIM's browser when it comes to HTML5 support. The margin is pretty wide.

Like I said, keep on pretending if it makes you feel better, but I strongly recommend reality -- it's a lot cooler.

Sigh... Give you facts, you ignore them. Oh, well.

It's a shame that you can't access the majority of video and music sites that use flash like pandora and grooveshark (I don't need a useless app, thanks), or play the hundreds of thousands of flash games. It's also sad that you can't take advantage of all the sites that use flash to make up for deficiencies in current web standards or otherwise improve the user experience when doing things like uploading files.

It takes some serious denial to believe that Flash is irrelevant today. What ever happened to the old "Apple is doing good by hastening the demise of Flash" excuse?

Besides, you'd think with Apples "commitment" to HTML 5, that they'd have better HTML 5 support than RIM! (The margin is pretty wide, by the way).

Yeah, the PlayBook already "stole" a ton of the really great ideas from WebOS. The corner of the screen even "glows red" with new notifications.

It's no secret that those ideas contribute greatly to the fantastic UI that the PlayBook is famous for. Add QNX, solid hardware, and the great new features of OS2, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a better tablet on the market.

Of course, RIM makes the PlayBook so in Slashdot land that makes it automatically useless. It totally sucks having the best HTML5 support along with WebGL and desktop quality Flash in my lightning-fast browser. It's terrible to have real-time multitasking and an UI that let's the user take advantage of it.

The web on BB has been fantastic since OS6 -- The old Torch (9800), for example, had better support for HTML 5 than the iPhone until iOS5 Take look.

That is to say, the browsing experience is so vastly improved from the old days that it's really worth taking a second look at what RIM has to offer.

Even BlackBerry's PlayBook has what feels like a better browser.

RIM has had a competitive browser for a over a year now. It's in no way incomplete.

Take a look at:
HTML 5 Test - Tablet Results
HTML 5 Test - Mobile Results

As a blackberry user, I no longer feel left-out when it comes to web browsing. If you compare the old Torch 9800 to say, the iPhone 3GS (known for having a great browser), you'll find that the Torch actually does a little bit better.

Even BlackBerry's PlayBook has what feels like a better browser.

RIM has had a competitive browser for a over a year now. It's in no way incomplete.

Take a look at:
HTML 5 Test - Tablet Results
HTML 5 Test - Mobile Results

As a blackberry user, I no longer feel left-out when it comes to web browsing. If you compare the old Torch 9800 to say, the iPhone 3GS (known for having a great browser), you'll find that the Torch actually does a little bit better.

I must have a problem expressing myself, for you are accusing me of not liking standards when I do know they are what makes the web today manageable. And I respect and love them.

Well, all major "things" in the internet, those who make it working and useful, have been brought to us with that "theoretical, academical process" you dislike. It's your right, of course.

Please cite me ONE of my sentences that can be construed to mean that I dislike that process. I bet you can't. I do like and respect that process. However I do believe that people should be allowed to use the implementations as they see fit. I don't believe everyone should be restrained from using anything that hasn't been published in a final state.

What you are pushing forward is known as "act soon, fix later" because "there's no time" or because "we need it yesterday". This is what I personally dislike a lot.

That's absolutely not what I am pushing forward. If something works in ALL browsers and is a part of a draft standard and is widely used, I think it's a safe bet that it won't disappear from browsers overnight. It's also a safe bet that it won't disappear from the standard. So I think it's a safe bet that you won't have to fix it later. As a result, I think it would be silly to not use said features, just because "but the standard is in a draft state".

You say all browsers support the "interim HTML5".
Have you tried this site with ALL your browsers? Also the mobile ones?
Each of them only partially supports one of the intermediate drafts. Which is a two level uncertainty. And what about this one?
You surely know about the "cross browser" issues with Javascript. It started with two different implementations of a non-standardized scripting language. There are still hundreds of lines of code being run in almost all web pages just to cope with it.
And if you think about the big mess all the current browsers are doing with the mature HTML4 and CSS2, you can imagine how messy the scenario will be with HTML5. Web sites will still need to support all those dialects and variants of the HTML5, if they want to show the intended way.

No, all browsers don't support everything, this is true. However there is a sizeable subset of HTML5 and CSS3 that is supported by all latest versions of all browsers. I find it silly to advise people not to use that subset. So I do and I advise people to use it.

Look, a stupid bug is not being fixed in any open source browser. It's about a core HTML4 element which has forced hundreds of HTML publishers to look for partial workarounds.

Sure, but the world is not all black and white. I'm advocating a particular shade of gray, that is all. Of course, don't use something that is broken in most browsers. And no, there will never be a time when all bugs will be fixed and all implementations will be alike. Hopefully, that will never happen. So we'll always have to cope with cross-browser compatibility issues. This is the reality of life. You may live in a w3c smelling ivory tower of cross-browser compatibility heaven, but I do build websites in the meantime. So I cope with it.

So, in my humble opinion, standards matter. And also a lot.

In mine too.

Well, all major "things" in the internet, those who make it working and useful, have been brought to us with that "theoretical, academical process" you dislike. It's your right, of course.
What you are pushing forward is known as "act soon, fix later" because "there's no time" or because "we need it yesterday". This is what I personally dislike a lot.
You say all browsers support the "interim HTML5".
Have you tried this site with ALL your browsers? Also the mobile ones?
Each of them only partially supports one of the intermediate drafts. Which is a two level uncertainty. And what about this one?
You surely know about the "cross browser" issues with Javascript. It started with two different implementations of a non-standardized scripting language. There are still hundreds of lines of code being run in almost all web pages just to cope with it.
And if you think about the big mess all the current browsers are doing with the mature HTML4 and CSS2, you can imagine how messy the scenario will be with HTML5. Web sites will still need to support all those dialects and variants of the HTML5, if they want to show the intended way.
Look, a stupid bug is not being fixed in any open source browser. It's about a core HTML4 element which has forced hundreds of HTML publishers to look for partial workarounds.

So, in my humble opinion, standards matter. And also a lot.

And neither FF nor IE implement enough to pass the HTML5 test "completely".

ACID-moment for HTML5? Promote http://html5test.com/ in these big screens to undermine Microsofts statements.

130 + 5 bonus points from IE9

291 + 13 bonus points from Chrome 12.0.733.0 dev

Though I'd like to see DirectWrite support for Chrome too (just like in Firefox5 and IE9).

All the other browsers run on Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. Not IE 9. IE 9 scores worst on the HTML 5 tests compared to other browsers. IE 9 comes dead last compared to speed and memory use against other browsers. You'll have to point me out to where they're catching up with the other browsers.

FF 3.6.8 gets 139 + 4 bonus points out of possible 300

IE 7.0.5730 gets 12

NOTE: the http://html5test.com/ site does not keep score for any browsers.

There are problems with every browser's implementation of HTML5. Test your browser here and see. For all the buzzword bullshit about HTML5 from every browser maker, it's clear that pretty much all of them come up short. And that page is just looking at the top level functions, I bet there are bugs and quirks galore once you drill deeper.