Slashdot Mirror

More than 9 years ago, webstandards.org created this page

http://archive.webstandards.org/css/winie/inline.h tml

solely to notify Microsoft that it was not complying and conforming to web standards. Still today, in MSIE 7 beta 3, Microsoft has failed to comply. 9 years! Chances are it will take Microsoft 10 years to be able to render the page correctly!

From the article

One of the things I said in my post is that I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have an analysis of exactly where we are as a number with supporting or complying with CSS - given that there isn't an official test suite that exhaustively tests whether you comply with the standard or not. And any analysis you can do is going to be somewhat biased.

So you say there's no official test but you completely discount the very legitimate unofficial test that everybody else has stacked up against? Convenient. Oh and that bias you talk about? The Acid2 is only biased towards practicality and interoperability.

Get a fucking clue, Chris

I wonder if the browser will pass the Acid Test....

The crucial argument against IE is its terrible CSS support but it's very difficult to get this across to ordinary users. Here's my suggestion. Create your site with as many features as possible which fail in IE but render perfectly in Firefox, Safari etc. Next insert Javascript or CSS IE browser detection into your home page which inserts into the IE rendered page something along these lines:

This site will display better in a browser which supports web standards. Here's an example to show you the difference.

The example is a link to a screenshot of the home page rendered in Firefox and a link to the Firefox download page should also be added. This way we don't lock out IE users but make IE's shortcomings as obvious as possible thus dispelling the pernicious M$-cultivated illusion that sites with IE workarounds are the standard. For this to work it needs to be a standard response developed by the web standards project so that it becomes familiar when users see it on different sites. The only way to defeat M$ is to play them at their own game.

Give us a simple, complete page that uses AJAX and is still compatible with non-AJAX browsers.

Off the top of my head: Google Suggest. The same page offers enhanced Ajax functionality and still works in Lynx, without any need for two pages or radically different layouts.

The ways you make Ajax work in a backwards-compatible manner are the same techniques decent JavaScript developers have been using for years. Unfortunately, not a lot of people are aware of JavaScript best practices and the field is still dominated by people who concentrate on making it work in their favourite browser and then bodging it to work elsewhere, rather than starting from a good solid design and enhancing it in a structurally sound manner.

If you're interested in learning more, I suggest DOM Scripting and the DOM Scripting Task Force website as decent starting points. I haven't read the book, but I've heard a lot of good things about it from people who know what they are talking about.

Acid2 is not about CSS compliance but about supporting the documented ambiguities in the standard correctly (many undocumented ones remain).

The successors in the form of XHTML 1.x and 2.x drop the layout stuff (which sucked anyway) and tried to preserve most of the flawed semantics whilst adding new constructs and increasing complexity so much nobody really understands it.

There's the hopelessly underpowered javascript language

In case you don't know where the reference is from: ACID2 test

Acid2 Test

There are grassroots efforts out there. If you care to look, you can find them

I don't know, I use Opera 99.9% of the time and only fall back to Firefox in extreme emergencies, but, I must say that I'm not entirely certain they really listen all that well to suggestions and such. For example, people have been calling for extentions (let's not get into an argument here, whether you think it's good or bad, the fact is, a huge number of people want extentions so they should at least make it more clear why they haven't made any efforts they've shown to us in this direction) for years and there isn't even an official response as far as I know. Then they do these "widgets" that are just pointless (hey, I tried. I downloaded several things that should be useful and tried to get the hang of using them, but, in the end they just get in the way and have no real use. I searched every widget on their site and didn't find one that I didn't end up finding to be in the way once the neatness factor wore off. Anything a widget can do, you can do better with an actual program in Java or some other easily portable language.) If you look at their forums you can find some long running feature request threads that a lot of people have "+1"ed that just never happen. (Not to mention that more than a few of those are probably requests for extentions. It gets posted a lot.)

We can hope though I guess. All browsers have a lot of room for improvement (though I personally feel Opera mainly just needs extentions and to remove the extra pointless overhead that widget support has added) and if they actually stop and listen maybe we could get a browser that's truly as close to perfect as any peice of software can be? (Ok, that's going too far I guess, but wouldn't it be nice?)

Personally, I think it's a publicity stunt though. Get the web designers to look at Opera and get it mentioned enough that more users hear about it. To make suggestions on improvements, web designers would have to actually get it and try it (actually, I like the sound of that since a lot of them would have no choice but to admit that it's a good browser and maybe should get the occasional support instead of an "only IE and Firefox supported" page.) The truth is though, it seems to me that most of the suggestions are basically going to be things that should be ignored, such as a designer asking that they support a proprietary extention that works only in IE (I still don't know why they do that sort of thing since it's actually more work in the long run.) The fact is, unlike the big two (IE and Mozilla/Firefox) Opera is among the very few that correctly implements enough of the actual standards to pass the ACID2 test, so it seems to me like there isn't going to be a lot of requests that they support this or that standard.

So what's left from a designer's perspective besides asking them to fully support whatever little bit of the standards they don't already? Most changes need to come from the customer's perspective I think. Extentions, a better download manager, etc. It's easy to think of suggestions a user can make. Actually, what worries me is that generally what it comes down to is a developer wants as much control over your browser as they can. For example, one might want the ability to change the skin and menu layout of your browser specifically for their site. That's great for the developer, but, the end user would go bonkers in a hurry. Besides asking for proprietary extentions and more control over the user's screen, there's really so little that a developer can do that I can only conclude this is really ultimately just meant to get people's attention (hey, they got it on slashdot even, that's a good start, though the problem is that most slashdot users are intelligent enough to know about browser alternatives and most here who don't use Opera are just using it because for whatever reason they don't like it.)

Anyway, I'm not saying boycott Opera or something, just I'm wondering if this is just a publicity stunt or if they really do have a point for

for a site doing a story on beautiful OSX apps, probably don't want to have blue links on a blue background

For a site doing a story on OSX apps, it renders beautifully in the Safari browser (which is supplied with OSX). The text and blue links are on a white page that sits on the blue background.

I looked at the page in firefox and got the blue links on blue background.

Since the site is heavy on CSS, I would guess that the problem is that your browser doesn't render the CSS properly?

You could check if your browser handles CSS well by taking the acid2 test.

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

Really, the ACID test is about using techniques as complicated (and pointless) as they get to break browsers, while real web dev is about making sites that work.

A browser that passes the test is not automatically better than one that doesn't.

The link in the answers seems to be broken. The page can be found here: http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html

Acid2 link from article is dead. You can find the test here.

In light of yesterday's request for interview questions for the creator of CSS, I was dissapointed that interviewers aren't grilling Microsoft for standards compatibility. For that matter, why aren't we (as a community) grilling Firefox for their lack of standards compatibility? What would it take for them to 'get the picture'

How about a Firefox plugin that e-mails the Firefox foundation everytime you start Firefox? Or an ActiveX control in IE that does the same? I think it would send a clear message that these things are important to consumers and ought to be a priority for updates.

Do you think the so called Acid2 test is a useful test for determing browser compliance with standards and if so then why? If it isn't a good test then is there a simple alternate test that could be more useful for browser developers?

For your reference: http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html

http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html# top

Open in Opera, then in Firefox. I don't know how to answer you better.
Oh, don't even bother with MSIE... ;)

Damn, this story got my hopes up. I thought someone had modded FF so it's rendering engine would pass the ACID 2 test. It is a shame its just some hyped up browser.

This is the poorest excuse for an article I've seen on Slashdot in a while. Not only is it a rehash of an argument that's been going on for years, it doesn't even get its facts straight regarding the ACID2 test.

Opera9 isn't the only browser to pass the ACID2 test. Hell, it's not even the first.

Safari passed on April 27, 2005:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005 _04.html#008042

iCab passed in June, 2005, followed closely by Konqueror:
http://www.webstandards.org/2005/06/07/icab-konque ror-pass-acid2/

Beta builds of Opera were next on March 28, 2006:
http://www.webstandards.org/2006/03/28/acid2-suppo rted-in-opera-one-year-later/

A development branch of Firefox showed compliance on April 13, 2006:
http://www.thinklemon.com/weblog/2006/04/13/firefo x-acid2-compliance-on-its-way/

The funniest one is that someone cheated and got Firefox to pass last May:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/05/greasemonkey

This is the poorest excuse for an article I've seen on Slashdot in a while. Not only is it a rehash of an argument that's been going on for years, it doesn't even get its facts straight regarding the ACID2 test.

Opera9 isn't the only browser to pass the ACID2 test. Hell, it's not even the first.

Safari passed on April 27, 2005:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005 _04.html#008042

iCab passed in June, 2005, followed closely by Konqueror:
http://www.webstandards.org/2005/06/07/icab-konque ror-pass-acid2/

Beta builds of Opera were next on March 28, 2006:
http://www.webstandards.org/2006/03/28/acid2-suppo rted-in-opera-one-year-later/

A development branch of Firefox showed compliance on April 13, 2006:
http://www.thinklemon.com/weblog/2006/04/13/firefo x-acid2-compliance-on-its-way/

The funniest one is that someone cheated and got Firefox to pass last May:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2005/05/greasemonkey

ACID2 does test error handling among other things (what is well-defined in the standard, anyway), but it is not the only thing it checks for, and not even the most important one. See for yourself.

Anyhoo, the ACID2-compliant versions of Opera and Safari are beta releases and not displayed on their main download pages. Opera's download page displays Opera 8.5.4. Safari's download page displays Safari 1.2. IMO, I don't think ACID2 compliance is something to brag about if your compliant browser isn't stable enough for release.

If done badly, yes.

Anyone with any kind of disability has problems with it, ...

Are you aware of text image replacement? Those of us who use it understand well how to create sites accessible to people with disabilities. Your remark suggests otherwise.

...the images are far slower to download, ...

Thanks for the news flash. We'll take it into consideration.

...and making the text dynamic is nearly impossible.

No, it is not.

Because anyone that has worked heavily with browser based UIs knows that they have the same issues they have always had.

The Web Standards Project (WaSP) ran a similar Browser Update Campaign a few years back.

Note: some 827 people (rough estimate, contents may have settled during shipping) have written to point out that the CSS used in the test is invalid. This is deliberate, as a means of exposing the ability of user agents to handle invalid CSS properly. http://webstandards.org/action/acid2/#content-main

...was compliments of Tantek Çelik, standards evangelist, and main designer of the Tasman rendering engine which drove IE for Mac. In digging for his history with the project, I note a few things:

• Daring Fireball's archived recap of the history of IE for Mac leading up to its cancellation,
• A blog entry describing how after Tantek was finished with IE for Mac, Microsoft moved him over to ...WebTV (?!),
• An entry on the IE Blog where it looks like Microsoft is advertising for various open positions, and many people are responding with mixed emotions.

As for TFA... gah. Don't get me started on TFA. It doesn't mention IE for Mac at all (perhaps the Publications Coordinator who wrote TFA never heard of it?) and makes some innocent and half-assed assumptions about Web Standards—mostly their lack of existence.

And the marginalization of other browsers? Her argument basically runs that other browsers don't stand a chance against IE's installed base, while conveniently overlooking the fact that IE itself was once an "other" browser and citing ways that IE got the leg-up on Netscape without ever noting that those other browsers are doing the same things to IE. The argument basically runs "Yes, things changed in the past, but things will remain as they are now because they're the way they are now." Buh?

• Ahem?
• I said, "ahem?" (look at this page in IE, then in Firefox.)
• I said "AHEM," damnit! (note what computer the man in the hammock is using.)

Yes, Safari is quite capable. However, the parent post was clearly talking not about the Mozilla browser, but about Mozilla evangelism .

This is the project in which people would report websites that blocked non-IE browers, relied on IE-only technology or quirks, or made poor assumptions as to what browsers were out there (like telling a Mozilla 1.4 user to "upgrade" to Netscape 6.0). Volunteers would then contact the webmasters and encourage them to use cross-browser techniques, fix their coding errors or browser detection scripts, or whatever was necessary to get the site to work in more browsers and on more platforms than just IE6 on Windows.

Opera has a similar program called Open the Web.

Groups like Mozilla's Tech Evangelism, Opera's Open the Web, and the Web Standards Project have done quite a bit over the last few years to reduce the number of high-profile websites that only work in Internet Explorer, laying the groundwork to make Safari, Opera, and Firefox into viable alternatives for the average user.

So how do we convince owners of web sites to fix their broken CSS, JavaScript, user agent sniffing, and multimedia playback?

At this point, as a general web surfer, the only thing you can do is evangelize. When you find a website that does not have standards-compliant code, drop the webmaster a short note pointing them to the Webstandards.org FAQ, and perhaps (politely) point out where in their code they are non-compliant. Please note that there is a very big difference between "non-compliant" and "poorly designed." Flash, which is considered very poor form in web design, is compliant with the W3C spec as a valid <embed> object, and it does have its uses.

Unfortunately, user agent sniffing is a necessary evil, until such time as a certain unnamed browser (*cough*IE*cough*) decides to support webstandards properly. But since all that happens server-side, it should be trivial for a webmaster to impliment, and thoroughly transparent to the user. The way I see it is this: the webmaster can identify all the browsers which do not support web standards, and code a seperate stylesheet specifically for them (currently only IE). Everyone else gets the standard, and compliant, stylesheet. Hacks should not be used, since they rely on known bugs and could break with updates (such as in IE 7, which fixes bugs webmasters use to hack the broken box model in IE, but does not fix the box model). Many of these broken box model issues can be fixed with extra markup as well (nested, empty <div>s), which is not wrong per spec, but certainly clutters the page and goes against the intention of CSS.

Get out there and tell people why web standards are important. Standards of any kind are only useful if people adhere to them.

I use Dreamweaver as well, and faced the same problem when I first started using it years ago. What you want to do is go into Edit > Preferences > Code Rewriting and deselect everything you don't want it to do. In addition, I also always turn off the auto close tag option under 'Code Hints' on the same dialog menu.

Dreamweaver is actually very capable of turning out standards compliant and accessiblity friendly code, it just needs a little tweaking when dealing with less than clueful users. Macromedia [now Adobe] had been fairly responsive to the concerns of the standards community, specifically The Web Standards Project which had a task force focusing on just Dreamweaver and standards compliance.

Acid2 Test? http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/

For those who are wondering - the 2.0 alpha build renders the ACID 2 test exactly the same as Mozilla 1.7.12. (http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html #top)

I don't personally think that the ACID 2 test is the be-all end-all test, but I know the question will be asked, hence the post.

Acid2 is a test page for web browsers published by The Web Standards Project (WaSP). It has been written to help browser vendors make sure their products correctly support features that web designers would like to use. These features are part of existing standards but haven't been interoperably supported by major browsers. Acid2 tries to change this by challenging browsers to render Acid2 correctly before shipping.

• it's good
• MS cares about standards per se

how about this one :

http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html

That's intentional. One of the primary points of Acid 2 is to test that the browser breaks correctly when it gets certain kinds of invalid markup.

There's a guide to how the tests work.

Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard

... that the CSS used in the test is invalid. This is deliberate, as a means of exposing the ability of user agents to handle invalid CSS properly

Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard

... that the CSS used in the test is invalid. This is deliberate, as a means of exposing the ability of user agents to handle invalid CSS properly

The nose changes color when you mouseover it. Even in the mess that is Firefox's rendering of the page hovering your mouse over the face causes the nose to change colour from black to blue.
I guess that's something they really should specify in the reference diagram, but it's still a pass for Opera 9.

Look carefully at the reference diagram and the supposedly passing screenshot. I can clearly see the blue nose in the opera screen shot, and it's meant to be black in the reference diagram. Sure, it's close, but no cigar. I mean, if TFA complains that scroll bars appearing is a failure, surely miscolouring a part must be too.

Also, It would appear that Opera 9 has just one thing wrong - the nose. It's not supposed to be blue, it's supposed to be black, as per the sample rendering here: http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html

Take the ACID2 test...

That's not a bug, that's exactly what is supposed to happen when you scroll the page. From the technical guide:

In the markup, the row is represented by a p element which is fixed to the window rather than the scrollable canvas. If the Acid2 page is scrolled, the scalp will stay fixed in place, becoming unstuck from the rest of the face, which will scroll.

I don't use Safari because it doesn't render pages as well as a mozilla based browser

I respectfully disagree.

Link to the test for those interested: Acid2

Look at the java2D demos too to get ideas of what you can do with
this, within a 2D window.

I just tried it and the results look very good next to the reference image.

http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html

I don't know a thing about the Mozilla codebase, but I do know that the Gecko engine is not anywhere near as close to being standards compliant as Opera is. Opera can almost pass the Acid2 Test, Firefox doesn't even come close. (though it is much closer than IE)

Last time i checked, IE does NOT cope correctly with for example the ACID2-test [http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top]. For example the default browser on the mac, Safari, is one of the few browsers that actually does.

It does an even worse job on the Acid2 (CSS) test than IE6 did. Bah!

In that vein, I've seen a lot of comments asking if we will pass the Acid2 browser test published by the Web Standards Project when IE7 ships. I'll go ahead and relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships. The original Acid Test tested only the CSS 1 box model, and actually became part of the W3C CSS1 Test Suite since it was a fairly narrow test - but the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have. It's pointedly not a compliance test (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification"). As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7.