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
Right. So none of the browsers tested can display the test page correctly? And they're the best, most compliant browsers available?
And they've had how long to get it right?
In that case, it would seem to me that it is the standard that is broken, if it's really that difficult to render a page with a cascading style sheet.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
is an analysis of what failed with each browser (especially Firefox.) None of the links told us why the browser failed to render the smiley face or what the WSP did to obfuscate the code. Any takers?
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html == proper rendering
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top == test page
Jay | http://oldos.org
It was known before the test was published that no browser would get it right. That's the whole point!
The reason for having this is to expose bugs in current implementations. Internet Explorer is the obvious retard, implementing about 50% of CSS 2.1, but that doesn't mean that the other browsers can just slack off at 95%. That's not what the W3C is about, it's not what WASP is about, and it's not what this acid test is about.
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.
In order for something to qualify as FUD, it has to be untrue.
Given that Microsoft itself does not pretend that IE has a complete CSS 2.1 implementation, it cannot be FUD to state that it is obvious that IE will do worse on a test of CSS 2.1 than other browsers which do claim to implement that particular standard.
Note also that many people consider CSS 2 to be overcomplicated and not very useful in practice. It is therefore not necessarily even a bad thing for a browser to fail this test - arguably, a browser that passed it would be bloated, as it would implement all sorts of things that are not necessary to view 99.99% of web pages. So to say that IE fails the test badly is not only not FUD - it isn't even (necessarily) a criticism!
Any chance you could train your knees not to jerk so quickly, please?
None, they used something like Gimp or Photoshop. I asked them.
There's no degree of broken.
Yes, there is. If Firefox gets, say, 90% of the CSS rules correct, and Internet Explorer gets, say, 40% of the CSS rules correct, that's significant.
If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all.
Huh? Firefox made the headline as failing the test. Internet Explorer didn't. And you consider that to be FUD against Microsoft?
like
safari on tiger anyone ?
please post a screenshot of that I would really be intrested
stats on web browsers market share
w3 numbers
Right now I am looking at a handy CSS reference chart saying which browser supports what, and the fact is, one third to half of the standard is entirely un-implemented by Mozilla, Opera and IE.
If a CSS standard falls on browser designers to implement, and no one implements it, was it really "the standard?"
IE6 implement far less of the CSS2 spec than any other browser - that's a fact. Hence the "obviously".
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
In a way I agree - I think implementing CSS2 to its full extent would be more than twice as good as implementing half of it.
At the same time I think implementing 80% is better than implementing 35%.
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
So when Firefox applies the display: table-cell rule correctly, that's utterly meaningless and should be filed as a bug because Firefox applies other rules on the same page wrongly? You aren't making sense.
There are many, many CSS rules in the test. The test is designed to exercise lots of different areas of CSS.
If you think that there's no useful information beyond "no browser applies all of the rules correctly", well then you've wasted your time reading this story, because I could have told you that before this test was even published.
Let's all pat the OSS Community on the back!
What does open-source have to do with this? Opera, a tiny company with nowhere near the resources of Microsoft, who haven't released their browser as open-source, have done miles better than Microsoft.
I think you're just trolling, especially when you try and turn this into some kind of open-source vs proprietary flamewar.
Umm take the actual test this time, rather than looking at the reference image.
I tried it on the pretty much the same machine as you (just plain Server vs Adv Server though), and it was the same hideous red mess shown in the IE screenshot.
According to TFA, they did this deliberately: compliant browsers should ignore bogus CSS attributes.
Just out of curiosity...what browser did they use to get the successful reference rendering? I'm presuming there's one that successfully renders, otherwise, how do they know their test code is valid? I've clicked around but don't know what they used to generate that png.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
I'm confused, is this supposed to be valid CSS2? The W3C CSS validator finds 8 errors in the page.
.parser-container div .parser .parser .parser .parser .parser
-molo
CSS validator results
* Line: 46
Parse Error - second two]
* Line: 91 Context :
Invalid number : color orange is not a color value : orange
* Line: 97 Context :
Property error doesn't exist : }
* Line: 100 Context :
Property m rgin doesn't exist : 2em
* Line: 100
Parse error - Unrecognized : };
* Line: 102 Context :
Invalid number : width only 0 can be a length. You must put an unit after your number : 200
* Line: 103 Context :
Parse Error - ! error;
* Line: 103 Context :
Parse error - Unrecognized : }
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
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.
The real lessons to be learnt from this seem to be getting lost here. If we put aside the MS vs Moz, FUD vs non-FUD and not-as-broken vs either broken or not debates we can see that web designers should have something to look forward to in the (near?) future.
Finally, here is something that could actually give the browser developers something to aim for and help to pull together the standardisation of modern CSS rendering. From how that smiley face is supposed to look I'm already quite excited about what we'll be able to do once all of the browsers are up to scratch.
Now all we need is for the browser developers to take note of this, use it as a learning tool and a target to aim for and give the web design/development community a hell of a lot less stuff to debate about.
It could happen...
But of course, in addition to this they shouldn't let the acid2 test be a final goal and then just sit back and let themselves get rusty. Personally i'd like to see a publicly available acid test for all the new versions/revisions of CSS standards so that Joe Home User can more easily choose which browser to use. An acidN test once every 8 years?
This is the fast moving world of technology, don't you know.
At the end of the day, I'd like to drive home in the car that's timing is a little off causing a loss of 2 mpg and 3 hp, as opposed to the car that is in such a state of disrepair that the axle falls off after 2 miles and the fuel tank spontaneously combusts.
There's also the idea that, assuming all parties are working to make their browser compliant, then it may also be assumed that one party may be closer to reaching full complaice than the other.
Or, to further mutilate an abused analogy, which of the above cars would be easier to repair?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So? That's a good thing. I prefer to know up front where someone's bias lies. Everyone has one and when you try to hide it you have no way of knowing where it might creep it. Just be honest about it and accept it. I can go read an MSDN journal for an IE-biased opinion.
They made errors which the browsers should cope with if they follow the spec.
"Ask anybody who has to hop to IE to visit certain sites."
Well, if you get to a site where a CSS2 feature breaks in Opera or Firefox, switching to IE isn't going to do you a load of goodFirstly, 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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.