Slashdot Mirror

...I've submitted a note to the Eds. about a brief e-mail interview with Hyatt in which he makes it crystal clear that KHTML is easy to work with.

FYI.

Screenshot here: http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html

AFAIK, some of those are purposeful and some could be mishaps in the CSS validator. Check out Acid2: the guided tour to find out about it.

Yeah, the WaSP page said that's not only OK, its part of the test.

CSS parsing -- Acid2 includes a number of illegal CSS statements that should be ignored by a compliant browser. -- source

This page states that:

"Acid2 includes a number of illegal CSS statements that should be ignored by a compliant browser."

There's a "tour" of the test available that explains exactly what each row is meant to test, and it all looks like pretty fundamental stuff, so I wouldn't write it all off as a "corner case."

If nothing else, it helped Hyatt corner a number of outright glitches and bugs. I hope the Mozilla and IE7 teams follow his lead.

The Acid2 test is not about squashing browser bugs

Huh? From WaSP:

Acid2 is a test page, written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products. [...] Of course, if you uncover a bug in your browser, report the bug!

From the Acid2 Guided tour:

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.

From Molly E. Holzschlag:

It's important to keep in mind that the point of acid2 is precisely to show browser and tools developers what's lacking in their products.

Unless you don't consider fucking up stylesheets to be buggy behaviour, you are wrong.

So far, most browsers claim almost full compability with CSS1 and CSS2.

I've never seen a browser developer claim CSS 2 compliance. The whole reason CSS 2.1 was published was that browser developers weren't implementing all of it, so the W3C took out the more difficult bits and added some previously proprietary code. And only one browser developer has claimed CSS 2.1 compliance as far as I've seen (a KHTML developer mentioned it in a CVS commit log).

Acid2 is meant as a way to speed the adoption towards CSS3

Acid2 doesn't use any CSS 3.

just as the orginal Acid-test was supposed to speed the adoption of CSS2

The original Acid test didn't use any CSS 2.

The Acid2 test is not about squashing browser bugs

Huh? From WaSP:

Acid2 is a test page, written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products. [...] Of course, if you uncover a bug in your browser, report the bug!

From the Acid2 Guided tour:

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.

From Molly E. Holzschlag:

It's important to keep in mind that the point of acid2 is precisely to show browser and tools developers what's lacking in their products.

Unless you don't consider fucking up stylesheets to be buggy behaviour, you are wrong.

So far, most browsers claim almost full compability with CSS1 and CSS2.

I've never seen a browser developer claim CSS 2 compliance. The whole reason CSS 2.1 was published was that browser developers weren't implementing all of it, so the W3C took out the more difficult bits and added some previously proprietary code. And only one browser developer has claimed CSS 2.1 compliance as far as I've seen (a KHTML developer mentioned it in a CVS commit log).

Acid2 is meant as a way to speed the adoption towards CSS3

Acid2 doesn't use any CSS 3.

just as the orginal Acid-test was supposed to speed the adoption of CSS2

The original Acid test didn't use any CSS 2.

The two ancestor object elements should both display their fallback contents -- which is the inner object element. The fallback content of the inner object element should not be displayed as the data attribute returns a valid PNG image (depicting the eyes).

Anyone know more details about this test and what browsers do pass it (I'm guessing IE6 doesn't, I don't have it so can't test it)? I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.

This is the test and this is what it should look like. Here's some info about how it works.

Anyone know more details about this test and what browsers do pass it (I'm guessing IE6 doesn't, I don't have it so can't test it)? I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.

This is the test and this is what it should look like. Here's some info about how it works.

Anyone know more details about this test and what browsers do pass it (I'm guessing IE6 doesn't, I don't have it so can't test it)? I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.

This is the test and this is what it should look like. Here's some info about how it works.

From the Acid2 Guided Tour:

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.

After all the bluster from the leader at Opera about making the next generation of IE do the last standards correctly. I would think that his next product would pass the test? Yes/NO...anyone who owns Opera 8 please report if ACID2 passes on Opera8.

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

KHTML (or more exacly Safari engine, I don't know how many of the Safari-induced changes get back to the main KHTML trunk) progresses fast in terms of quality and may be the first browser to pass Acid2
While I'm far from a mac fan (heck, I don't even have one) I can't do anything but be impressed by the dedication and transparency Dave Hyatt puts in the Safari dev.

The Apple community is hella lucky to have such a guy handling their browsing needs...

FF 1.0.3 is still failing the Acid2 Test here

(Incidentally, I'm in favor of really paranoid IE settings, but since by using it you're implicitly trusting MS, the Office update site could probably have been automatically added to that list. I think that's why the gp noted it.)

Indeed.

Amusingly, I tried the Acid2 Test on IE with "enhanced security" turned on and it warned me the page may not render correctly because it "required an ActiveX control" that "was being blocked".

An ActiveX control ? On the Acid test page ? Turns out the page contains 3 <object> tags used to check cascaded content... Of course we all know an <object> tag always is an ActiveX control, do we ?

That's what I meant by "paranoid" :)

Well, it follows them more closely than IE at least, but it failed the Acid2 test.

Hell, while we're wishing on stars, maybe they'll make it even MORE standards compliant.

I don't know why they failed, but I do know that there is no obfiscation involved. In fact, WSP published a guided tour of the test.

Doug

Sorry, I take back the above. My edition of Firefox does get it wrong. My mistake, I got confused between this URL (the reference) and this URL (the test). D'oh.

Sorry, I take back the above. My edition of Firefox does get it wrong. My mistake, I got confused between this URL (the reference) and this URL (the test). D'oh.

There IS a contact address, you just have to hunt around for it... The "About" section of the site lists names and an email address.

There IS a contact address, you just have to hunt around for it... The "About" section of the site lists names and an email address.

• CSS parsing -- Acid2 includes a number of illegal CSS statements that should be ignored by a compliant browser.

Webstandards.org may have good intentions, but I'm not sure I trust their test or their organization. For one thing, someone has pointed out that the W3C's CSS validator rejects it. (This link currently slashdotted.)

Gecko renders part of the second row of the face at the right edge of the viewport. I believe that that is actually the correct behavior according to the specifications. Row 2 is generated by

<blockquote><address> </address></blockquote>

The blockquote is a block-level element with unspecified width, so except for the 60px left margin, it should occupy the entire width of the containing block (CSS 2.1, Sec 10.3.3). Therefore, the address element, which is floated to the right within the blockquote, is correctly placed at the right edge of the viewport. I don't see why the "shrink-to-fit" rule for computing the width of the blockquote should apply as they claim it does. There may be other errors, but I haven't investigated further.

When the W3C publishes a test, one can be pretty sure that it's authoritative. But who is behind webstandards.org? They claim to be a grassroots coalition, yet I don't see where on their website they invite site visitors to join or contribute to their cause.

Their explanation of the test lacks a contact address at the end to report errors. It seems rather careless of them to publish the test in that state, and it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the test.

It's good to see someone making an effort. I do hope that this test will help browsers improve, but I wouldn't trust that the test itself is 100% accurate, either. I would love to see the W3C devise more compliance tests of this sort.

Are you sure you're looking at the right page? The link in the article is to the reference image, which is just a PNG of the correct output. Try this link for the actual test:

http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top

Safari fails for me.

Or maybe you clicked on the reference instead of the test.

Or maybe you clicked on the reference instead of the test.

http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html == proper rendering

http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top == test page

http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html == proper rendering

http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top == test page

The Acid2 Challenge

It isn't Opera doing the test -- I know; I'm on the dev list for it.

Some Opera employees are helping a lot, but it's WaSP's test.

Some IE folks may end up lending a hand, too. And I'd love to get some Moz folks, and Dave Hyatt (or anyone else at Apple or the KHTML project) to pitch in as well.

It's sponsored by the Web Standards Project, just as the original Acid Test was.

A couple of Opera people ARE doing a lot of the work on the test, but the current dev version exposes Opera bugs as well (I'm on the dev list and have seen it).

I can't speak for either the WaSP as a group or the other folks involved in the test, but I can assure you I have no interest in contributing to something that's just an Opera PR stunt. This is intended to reveal weaknesses in ALL browsers. The challenge to MS is a result of their inaction/indifference since IE6 (itself rather half-hearted in terms of improved standards support, save for the 'fixed' box model), not because they're the only ones not getting the standards right.

The post is misleading (there's a first ;-). Opera isn't developing the test, the Web Standards Project is. I know -- I'm on the dev list for it.

There *are* a couple of Opera folks working on the test, but the current dev version of the test also exposes some bugs in their browsers (and in Firefox).

I can't speak for either the WaSP as a whole or all the folks working on the Acid2 Test, but personally I'd welcome input from MS folks as well. The more weaknesses the test exposes in all browsers, the better AFAIC.

Let the other browser creators build a site, publisize it and ashame M$. This might work but no guarantees.

The Acid2 test will not be built by OperaSoft but by the developpers of The Web Standards Project.

[What follow are my opinions.]

This battle is barely on developer radar, as far as I know. Those on the bleeding edge are using .NET and/or XUL as per ideology and having a great time.

The mantra for nine years has been that one needs to validate on the server, because the client can't be trusted.

This comes down to servers vs. clients in the end... server manufacturers and server software publishers want to be able to control the whole pipeline through the standards, at the potential cost of breaking backwards compatibility in web user agents, and bloating their code in the bargain.

Meanwhile the w3c is far out in front, the same way it's been with CSS2/3 and other tech.

The Web Standards Project, to which I am attached, has taken a wait-and-see approach. This is due mostly to resource constraints, but also because we're loath (as a group) to take the side of any publisher or group of publishers except in defense of active Recommendations, or in opposition to precedents that would hurt the user community as a whole (such as RAND licensing and the Eolas suit).

When everything's said and done, the greater interest is in a fair standard that's likely to be followed, even if it doesn't manifest the most intelligent solution.

IMO the latter vendor dependent death march is the the major outside factors for the failure of large software projects. In most cases, in house development teams just cannot keep up with the vendor brand-new-innovative-reason-to-upgrade "features" of each release.

Larger in-house projects take around one to three years to mature, and need around a seven year window to recover the ROI. Porting existing software to the vendors new system often takes more effort than the development of the original software ( pity the Visual Basic coders who have to upgrade millions of lines of VB to VB.NET ).

One solution to the Vendor Dependent Death March is to build upon stable vendor independent foundations, augmented with open sourced software.

Over the two decades one api set has remained relatively constistantly implemented by all OS vendors : POSIX . Linux and all of the Unix based systems implement native APIs that follow the POSIX standard closely, and some offer fully compliant libraries as an add on. The Linux standard basealso offer a cross vendor foundation.

The above solid foundation can be safely augmented using open source licensed software, by being rebuilt in house so that it runs from subdirectories of the project ( /opt/[organization]/[project]/[package] ). The distribution/OS Vendor can then ship conflicting versions of dependent packages without it breaking the project code. The in house developers can then test and port to the new version at their leisure.

Vendor dependent user interface systems are fickle and often are the braking point for many failed in house projects. The solution is to build client/server code that uses a standard browser interface or use a standard GUI networked interface that has remained backwardly compatable to application written back in 1986: The X[11] Protocol. You can have a X based application running on a server sitting behind an internal firewall and it will run productively for over a decade. Every OS platform has multiple vendors who supply X11 client side servers, this is one interface that is futureproof.

When interfacing with any changeable or vendor specific system , build a connecting system that runs as standalone binary ( or plugin DDL ) that sits between the project code and the application/library. Future developers can quickly hack the independent module without touching the base project source code. This strategy has saved my sanity a number of times.

If at all possible ( subject to NDAs ) develop as much of the code as possible as an open source project. Even if only a couple of other individuals or organizations end up deploying software from the same base, it will give your developer and managers feedback from outside developers who often more free of the inside office politics to give a more honest opinion on the quality of the source code.

Repost

IMO the latter vendor dependent death march is the the major outside factors for the failure of large software projects. In most cases, in house development teams just cannot keep up with the vendor brand-new-innovative-reason-to-upgrade "features" of each release.

Larger in-house projects take around one to three years to mature, and need around a seven year window to recover the ROI. Porting existing software to the vendors new system often takes more effort than the development of the original software ( pity the Visual Basic coders who have to upgrade millions of lines of VB to VB.NET ).

One solution to the Vendor Dependent Death March is to build upon stable vendor independent foundations, augmented with open sourced software.

Over the two decades one api set has remained relatively constistantly implemented by all OS vendors : POSIX. Linux and all of the Unix based systems implement native APIs that follow the POSIX standard closely, and some offer fully compliant libraries as an add on. The Linux standard base also offer a cross vendor foundation.

The above solid foundation can be safely augmented using open source licensed software, by being rebuilt in house so that it runs from subdirectories of the project ( /opt/[organization]/[project]/[package] ). The distribution/OS Vendor can then ship conflicting versions of dependent packages without it breaking the project code. The in house developers can then test and port to the new version at their leisure.

Vendor dependent user interface systems are fickle and often are the braking point for many failed in house projects. The solution is to build client/server code that uses a standard browser interface or use a standard GUI networked interface that has remained backwardly compatable to application written back in 1986: The X[11] Protocol. You can have a X based application running on a server sitting behind an internal firewall and it will run productively for over a decade. Every OS platform has multiple vendors who supply X11 client side servers, this is one interface that is futureproof.

When interfacing with any changeable or vendor specific system , build a connecting system that runs as standalone binary ( or plugin DDL ) that sits between the project code and the application/library. Future developers can quickly hack the independent module without touching the base project source code. This strategy has saved my sanity a number of times.

If at all possible ( subject to NDAs ) develop as much of the code as possible as an open source project. Even if only a couple of other individuals or organizations end up deploying software from the same base, it will give your developer and managers feedback from outside developers who often more free of the inside office politics to give a more honest opinion on the quality of the source code.

The sites of the "Others" you mention are (IMO) not very good themselves

http://www.zeldman.com/ - Darkish Green on Light Green poorly readable colours. No sitemap. Search box filled with a junk phrase that needs deleting before starting, and as filled not much space to click after this existing contents when about to delete it. Unclear section titles, alt text no better.

http://www.joeclark.org/ - Bigger than users chosen size text (as every thing is in lists) makes page too long. Use of non-standard 8-bit characters. No Sitemap.

http://www.webstandards.org/ - No search. No sitemap. Otherwise OK.

http://www.alistapart.com/ - No sitemap. No contents or short titles list in each section, you have to "More articles->" 10 at a time instead. Instead of link "Home" it is "Up Front" (Never heard of standard practices?)

The ALA site publishers include Zeldman, the Zeldman site contributors includes Joe Clark, the web standards site former major people includes Zeldman. The AC probably just likes this circle of styles, but on the other had maybe he is Zeldman himself? ;-)

Support the Web Standards Project, then. They're working for what you want.

A Web site should not require a specific brand of browser. A site that is accessible to all browsers, but which looks best with a standards-compliant browser, is a different matter. In the past, there were "Best viewed with [name of a popular browser]" and "[name of a certain browser] Now" logos for sites. One individual did a campaign called "Best Viewed With Any Browser" to encourage browser-independent HTML pages. The campaign includes graphics for participating pages.

As a web developer there are plenty of features I would like to see along the lines of CSS/XHTML/ECMAScript standards compliance. I would say that my payment of sweat and tears with workarounds to these problems more than qualifies me as a customer.

I'm quite aware of the religious war between RSS and Atom, thank you.

End of the day, Atom was and always has been on a track to be a by-Hoyle standard. RSS was and is not, and in fact one of -- if not the -- most influential people in the RSS world, Dave Winer, has specifically disavowed any such intent for RSS.

Dave has his reasons, to be sure. But none of them change the fact that Atom can be said to be a standard in a way RSS cannot.

And you might wish to read up on what, exactly, Blogger offers. You can indeed get RSS on Google blogs; you just have to sign up for Blogger Pro.

why
switched

NOTE: It's interesting how the left-hand margin of a page that says "Brought to you by The Web Standards Project" renders so poorly under Mozilla (or is that an artifact of the Google cache?).

gewg_

This browser warning page thoroughly trashes MSIE, but every phrase is linked to a news article that uses the exact same verbiage in order to demonstrate that it isn't just anti MS FUD - It's the honest truth. It's designed and maintained for webmasters to deliver to the IE-using visitors to their webpages. You can read the source code for some more information about that. In case you're curious, here's a paste of the text and links that it has - This should prove quite effective with anyone you're trying to convince to stop using IE:

Your web browser - a version of Microsoft Internet Explorer - may not function properly on this website, and could have a large number of problems that allow hackers to hijack it with viruses. These viruses could be used by criminals to secretly take over your computer, download child-pornography, or to commit acts of terrorism and fraud. You may automatically update it now with Microsoft's available patches, however, there is a possibility that a necessary patch will not be available due to Microsoft's somewhat sluggish development schedule.

The US Department of Homeland Security strongly suggests that you stop using Internet Explorer immediately.

There are several standards-compliant web browsers that you may use instead of Internet Explorer. Please install one of them as a replacement.

• Opera [Download Now]
• Mozilla [Download Now]
• Netscape [Download Now]
• K-Meleon [Download Now]

If you suspect that your computer is already being used for criminal activity, it is critical that you seek help from a computer professional in your local area. You may also try one of the free web-based virus scanners that are available.

I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things.

No, the innovation they're stifling is that of the Web. See http://webstandards.org/opinion/.

Quite funny :)

I noticed that Blogger has done a complete redesign using standards (backed by many of the Big Names in the buzzing site-design industry, including my favourite)

I remember A List Apart did an 'Extreme Makeover' on our beloved frontpage, wondering wether we'll ever get to see it happen! (must be a hell-uv-a job...)

Dreamweaver MX 2004 (which follows DW MX, which followed DW 4...) has excellent CSS support. It knows when to use div and when to to use span and has an easy interface for creating comprehensive CSS styles. It interprets CSS shorthand flawlessly. It has a convenient CSS reference. It also knows the difference between styles, pseudo-styles, and re-defining tags using CSS.

The WYSIWYG can display CSS elements far better than GoLive or FrontPage, though I mostly use the Code view.

Maybe you should try a more recent version of Dreamweaver. Also, you might be interested in the Dreamweaver Task Force which helped bring DW to greater standards compliance.

Top 10 IE CSS Problems

PNG Support

mod_perl problems

Just a few things I've found....but, the CSS ones are the biggest bitch. I'm trying to put together sites w/o tables for formatting...but, since IE doesn't work boxes correctly...well, lots of kludging...