Slashdot Mirror
Firefox and Opera Fail the Acid2 Test
naylor83 writes "Four weeks ago, Opera's CTO Håkan Lie put forward the Acid2 challenge to the IE developers at Microsoft. The Web Standards Project has now silently published the promised browser test. Somewhat surprisingly, both Opera and Firefox fail to correctly render the test page. Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer. More screenshots are available at my blog, as well as at other people's."
It's not fud...
did you look at the FF rendering and the IE rendering? Neither is perfect, but the IE rendering is absolutely horrid.
Jay | http://oldos.org
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html == proper rendering
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top == test page
Jay | http://oldos.org
Not even Firefox supports all of CSS2.
Google found an article that describes this in more detail
Which part of "obviously" is Fear, Uncertainity or Doubt? It's common knowledge that IE6 is far behind in implementing the W3C web standards.
also fails
You obviously aren't a web developer. Everybody knows Internet Explorer's support for the W3C specifications is atrocious, its rendering engine was last updated in 2001 and has yet to implement HTML 4.01, CSS 1.0, CSS 2.0, PNG 1.0 or HTTP 1.1. Those specifications date from the 90s. Some of them are eight or nine years old.
Internet Explorer is famous for being crap. It's the new Netscape 4. So when somebody says "obviously", they aren't an anti-Microsoft troll, they are simply stating facts. If IBM or Redhat were responsible for that atrocity, it would be equally reviled.
None, they used something like Gimp or Photoshop. I asked them.
I think he was probably looking for something more like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28948 0 for Firefox. Check the bugs that that one depends on.
one third to half of the standard is entirely un-implemented by Mozilla, Opera and IE.
That depends on what you mean by "and". Internet Explorer doesn't support half of CSS 2, so obviously if you are looking for features implemented by Mozilla AND Opera AND Internet Explorer, then Internet Explorer is going to drag the others down.
If, on the other hand, you are claiming that Mozilla doesn't implement half of CSS 2, Opera doesn't implement half of CSS 2, and Internet Explorer doesn't implement half of CSS 2, well then you are wrong. Mozilla and Opera implement way more of CSS 2 than that, and even parts of CSS 3.
According to TFA, they did this deliberately: compliant browsers should ignore bogus CSS attributes.
It's supposed to be invalid. The CSS specification defines error handling, and Internet Explorer gets it wrong. A conforming user-agent would never apply those rules.
In fact it is necessary for this stylesheet to be invalid - otherwise it wouldn't test the error handling parts of the CSS specifications.
They made errors which the browsers should cope with if they follow the spec.
They deliberately made errors which the browsers should cope with according to the specs.
Firstly, the errors are there on purpose, to check the error handling conformance.
As for whether the <textarea> is shrink-to-fit or not, the CSS 2.1 specification has this to say.
The "rule number three" says that it is shrink-to-fit.
Your mistake is in referring to 10.3.3, which explains what to do for non-replaced block-level elements in normal flow. You should be referring to 10.3.7, which explains what to do for non-replaced block-level elements that are absolutely positioned.
What is a CSS div?
There's no such thing as a "CSS div". HTML has a <div> element type and CSS can style <div> elements, but your question makes no sense in this context.
Why is it so hard to create multicolumn layout and so easy to accidentally overlap divs?
Because the part of CSS that does this easily was never implemented in Internet Explorer, so web developers who want their website to display properly for most people have to use workarounds that weren't really designed for this purpose.
Why do the edges of a div always touch the sides of the containing div, unless I change some random nonintuitive CSS property.
You mean "margin" isn't obvious enough?
I have a theory: CSS was developed by a bunch of clueless graphic designers
I have a theory: you took one look at CSS, decided you didn't like it, and didn't bother learning the first thing about it.
I just can't help but notice how non-objective this site is.
On slashdot, the users submit (and thus, author) stories. They aren't generally schooled in the intricacies of journalism. It's not fair to expect 'professional' journalistic practices from them.
As unfair as it is to expect standards never stated nor implied, the comparison to Fox News is especially bad. Fox outright lies about their objectivity. Most people don't hate Fox News because of their conservative bias, but because they try to pass it off as fair and balanced.
This is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Nerds don't tend to suffer poor software gladly.
Last, it was obvious that IE would be the worst of the bunch. Some other article could just as easily have said, "Obviously, the Perl version was slower," or "But obviously, the RIAA continues to cripple their music with DRM." Which are roughly equivalent in their subjective way of communicating objective truth.
[I] am no way an MS advocate.
I'm not all that convinced.
Slashdot editors will systematically post any negative news about Microsoft (or, if they're positive, spin them negatively) and will quietly ignore many negative news about open source issues.
That's a lie. This is negative news about a high-profile open-source project, and they didn't ignore this.
See for example the recent Mozilla vulnerability discovered by Secunia. It was published by the Register, CNET and many others. The Slashdot editors didn't find it worth posting.
This is also a lie.
You trolls are really pushing the "Slashdot bias" theme today, aren't you?
Also, don't get me started on performance. 3 machines in the lab range between 300Mhz celerons with 96MB ram and an IBM Personal Computer 300 (600Mhz celeron with 96M ram). Firefox on those is a no-no. Not only b/c painfully slow startup times, but also, painfully slow rendering of pages. Opera renders pages faster while running a kernel compile in the background than Firefox does on an idle computer. What's there in gecko that makes it so much slower than Opera or khtml? (Yes, you heard it right, starting Konqi from a foreign - Blackbox - wm is actually much faster both in startup and rendering of pages than firefox).
These slow machines function as simple 'terminals' btw - they have opera, gaim, xmms, rox - that can be choosen from a simplified menu.
This must be said at the risk of loosing karma (I have plenty, so go ahead) - there is something wrong with Firefox and its rendering engine, not only in compatibility or correct rendering of pages, but in performance as well. And this is not a minor issue, the performance difference b/w say opera or khtml and gecko is significant. So I have only one demand: inform the potential users correctly, don't give them the false impression that Firefox is better in every way than IE. It is not, and such misinformation will only create a backlash. 2 of those users are now actively looking for more and more justfications to have IE back as the standard browser. They are not interested in philosophy or open source ideals. They are interested in accessing the sites they want.