Slashdot Mirror
Opera 9.0 Fully Passes ACID2 Test
Rytis writes "Opera has just become the second browser after Safari to be able to pass completely the famous ACID2 test. Mark Wilton-Jones is running a little article on the history of the Opera and ACID tests. Of course, it includes a screenshot of Opera 9 showing the nice happy face saying "Hello world!"."
Actually, Konqueror passed second. Some might say this is less of an achievment since the fixes that allowed Safari to pass could be more easily ported into the Konqueror codebase, but I still think the OSS project that passed Acid2 first should probably get more respect on /. ;)
Info here.
Great that they pass the ACID test, but the real-world is just not perfect or by-the-book. They need to be able to handle what really happens, too. Example, my workplace Exchange web interface- Safari misses parts of the page, FireFox renders it fine. ACID test or no, I like the one that works in all situations.
What's more interesting, will it pass ACID3? It's easy to tweak the engine untill it passes a single known test. Historicaly, Opera had (and still has?) problems with both JavaScript and CSS. I must admit though, that the rendering in Opera 8 (pre ACID2) is much better than Mozilla's.
Remember that http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/show.dml/1723 75the weekly which passes Acid2 has been released publicly :)
Coral Cache
FTA:
... overflow: hidden; /* hides scrollbars on viewport, see 11.1.1:3 */ ... }"
"Konqueror and iCab almost pass (and claim to pass), but they both fail to apply one of the styles required by the test, and as a result they display a scrollbar even though they shouldn't (the Acid 2 guide neglects to mention this style, but see the source code for the test itself):
html {
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
Good work on the correction, but does it matter so much?
The important thing is who is there and who isn't. The order in which the browsers arrived at compliance is of no consequence to users of the browsers.
Two sides to this: (1) conformance for developers (makes our lives easier) (2) compatibility for consumers (they don't care about making our lives easier)
--
graphicallyspeaking
graphically speaking
A big well done to the Opera team. Safari passed the test in November last year, and hopefully Firefox will pass soon as well. Increased standards compliace is a Good Thing(tm) for users and webmasters alike. If the minority browsers continue to push standards (which the tech-savvy webmasters follow) it will push IE into improving its own rendering engine. Although even their unreleased version seems to be a bit behind the times...
From TFA: It is somewhat worrying that IE 6 renders Acid 2 very similarly to Opera 3.6, and the hyped IE 7 renders it very similarly to Opera 4.
'Somewhat worrying' indeed. I know people (of the pretty-damn-computer-literate variety) that won't switch from IE6 because it "works fine for them". I'm sure they know about the vulnerabilities [now that Symantec says so, it must be official!], the rendering issues and speed*, but they are sticking to their guns. So the only way people like this will have their experience enhanced is by teams like Mozilla and Opera pushing the browser envelope and hoping IE take interest. Either that or some X factor that makes the alternative browser a 'killer app', rather than IE, which is an app killer. (I couldn't resist, sorry!)
Well done again to Opera. Webmasters everywhere are silently saying a big 'thank you'.
*Note: I am aware that some will say that IE 6 loads quicker/renders quicker than FF. I have found the two of comparable speed for light pages, and FF slightly faster for 'heavier' pages. Opera is faster than both of them. Draw your own conclusions, and install all three (or two if your run a non-Windows OS). I found an old demo disc with IE 3 recently, and will be trying that out.
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
... they show IE screenshots, but don't show how close/far away Netscape and Mozilla and Firefox are from passing.
Firefox is good. The plugins extend the browser hugely.
But I'm happy with Opera, be it for the faster responce I get on the same machine as I have Firefox installed on, the ability not to search for plug ins for whatever feature I need, 'it just works'
I just find Opera is faster at implementing standards, is more reliable with IE geared sites (don't like the fact, but I have to be pragmatic and deal with it as promoting interoperability is not what pays my bills), is more innovative (has important new features first and has them 'out of the box') and makes a good testing ground for my projects, and is all together very nice. And now it's free (as in beer).
Firefox is good. Opera is good too. Different priorities for different users, I don't have access to source code or the ability to contribute in the same way, but for me I'm fine with that. Both are far superior to IE's features, security and map for an interoperable internet in the future. Nuff said.
"Opera 9 (get the weekly build) now passes the Acid 2 test, making it the second browser to do so. And yes, I can count. Safari passed first, and Opera is second. Konqueror and iCab almost pass (and claim to pass), but they both fail to apply one of the styles required by the test..."
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
If you have RTA, you would know that Konqueror claims to pass, however it fails to aply a final style-sheet.
I am happy to see that Internet Explorer 7 passes the ACID2 test somewhat better now. It is actually possible to see the resemblance of a happy face now. Good job, Microsoft!
Full Tilt
No, that's wrong. Even if it isn't that important who did it first, but that it gets done at all, the facts should be right.
Safari did it first, then iCab, then Konqueror, and now Opera. See http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/04/acid2-sp/ . This order is not the "release" order, but when an alpha/beta/nightly passed the test, and the developer(s) told us.
If we consider released versions, I'm not sure what order we get, but I believe only Safari and Konqueror have released the compliant versions yet.
RTFA? This is Slashdot. Why are you suggesting I RTFA before mindlessly posting a comment like that?
Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
What makes Opera the second browser? Last time I checked, iCab and Konqueror rendered the test correctly as well.
Opera has just become the second browser after Safari...
Second browser after Safari? Which was the first after Safari to do it? Oh, you mean the second browser, after Safari...It's amazing what commas can do. Learn to use them.
This guy's the limit!
According to WaSP (the people who wrote the Acid2 test), Safari passed first, followed by iCab and Konqueror. and Safari was the first browser to have a public release that rendered it.
That makes Opera the 4th browser to render Acid2 correctly.
This page has a bit of info on it, http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/04/acid2-sp/
Is that a coincidence?
Take the ACID2 test...
Hi,
No its not. Where can I download the source?
Oh wait I can't. Not an OSS project. I can get the khtml part -- which I've already got because we real open source people made it. khtml is _L_gpl, so it can be linked to closed source code -- like safari. Safari is a closed source app that uses lgpl khtml. Good on them for using khtml, bad on you for lying about safari being OSS.
You CANNOT build safari with the webkit and other bits of source they give you. I'm getting tired of people claiming Apple is a lot more friendly toward OSS then it is. Its just using OSS for a free ride.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Opera is actually the third....icab was the first browser to pass the test..
Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
Move along, citizen.
How I love thee, except for one small problem. My website. It doesn't render properly in Opera, on any platforms. Scrolling erases all the content, and I have no idea why. If anyone can work out why this happens, I'd love to know...
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Encouraging that one more browser can now pass the test maybe, and no doubt more and more will follow suit, when will the Browser pass the test?
I wrote off Opera the when they came out with v8 and decided to tell the user every time that they visited a site not using a 256bit key that the site cert was defective. I wasted countless hours trying to assure our clients that their users contacting them was nothing to worry about. The opera folks trumped the firefox arrogance and assumed that since Verisign had just started selling 256bit certs, then all sites should immediately upgrad their cert regardless of cost or validity of their current cert. Maybe they were receiving checks from Verisign?
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
Example, my workplace Exchange web interface- Safari misses parts of the page, FireFox renders it fine. ACID test or no, I like the one that works in all situations.
There are a lot of crappy pages out there. If a page doesn't make it through the HTML validator why should anyone expect a browser to render it? Are your pages at work valid? What's the point of standards-compliant rendering engines if they all allow exceptions to the standard to be rendered?
A lot of times Safari won't render big chunks of web pages because of malformed markup. Dave Hyatt (rightly, I believe) doesn't want to spend lots of coding effort dealing with error recovery when parsing sloppy web pages. Browsers like MSIE and Netscape (pre-Mozilla) are too permissive and have allowed people to get away with downright bad HTML.
That said, the Safari Compatibility Hit List was recently created, to either fix Safari compatibility problems or to encourage sites to fix their markup.
Can opera handle third party cookies properly yet? A little more important than styles rendering in my opinion.
maybe then I'd use it.
Same with tabbed browsing. Firefox to often still pops up a window when I don't want one because at its core it is still a window based browser where opera is deep down a tabbed browser.
Yes I like some of the extensions in Firefox but for day to day browsing Opera is just that little bit easier to control, a tad faster and less of a hog.
It ain't perfect but it is getting there.
Oh and to get the MS bashing in. When will IE pass the acid test?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It also makes Opera the first publicly available web browser that renders the Acid2 page correctly under the Microsoft Windows operating system. This is important if you don't want to have to re-buy your PC (in switching to Mac OS X, which runs only on Apple hardware) or your peripherals (in switching to Linux, where SANE still doesn't support my flatbed scanner). Or is Konqueror for Cygwin/X considered stable yet?
Firefox comes pretty close to passing the test, but not quite. Its performance falls somewhere between Opera 7.5 and 8.0, but sadly I haven't the means to post my own screenshot. However, curious users can go ahead and take the test themselves right here: http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html
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
Mark Wilton-Jones is running a little article on the history of the Opera and ACID test
;-)
There's a more useful history about it here (in reverse chronological order), describing what exactly the standard compliance problems were, and how they fixed them, starting with Opera 8.00.
And go to the Opera Desktop Team blog to download the actual build that works with this. However, note that this build should be treated like a Firefox nightly, and there may be some pretty serious rendering regressions, doing currently more damage to the layout engine than good from following the Acid2 test.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wow. How unfortunate for you. I guess this just ought to remind me how lucky I am that promoting interoperability is what pays my bills.
So an unreleased major revision of Opera renders the ACID2 test better than an unreleased major revision of IE?
Wow. Earth-shattering.
Wait until both products are released. *Then* start making comparisons.
i know a guy who passed the acid test back in college... twice!
This is all very fine and good but what I really want is to use my credit union's website with something other than IE. Alas, whatever microsoft extensions they use prevent my doing so. The problem is less that a given browser won't display rare font/layout X properly but that some hosts use proprietary programming techniques for their website.
I believe you mean your manufacturer still doesn't support linux.
That's correct. However, I am locked into my manufacturer because in order to switch to another manufacturer, I would have to re-buy hardware.
Why then don't you expect your manufacturer to provide the linux drivers too.
I didn't expect Linux drivers when I asked for the scanner as a birthday present because at that time, I had no clear intention of switching to Linux.
I know my Samsung AIO came with drivers for Windows and Linux on the CD. That's why I supportted them with my cash.
While inside a Best Buy store, how would I know what peripherals come with Linux drivers? Zero boxes have a plump penguin on them. Printing out the hardware compatibility list and carrying it into the store doesn't work if (for example) I seek a compatible printer.
plase check the post #'s before modding the WRONG one redundant, sheesh.
Hi s.d.m - There is nothing sadder then replying to your own post as AC to complain about moderation.
You were modded down for being a whiney safari fanboy. No stfu.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.tubmonkey.co m
47 errors. You're using tag soup, not XHTML.
but its still Opera.
=V=
In a discussion about the Acid2 test, you claim that Safari isn't free software:
But the frontend code isn't very relevant to this discussion. Safari passes Acid2 if and only if WebKit passes Acid2. Or do you claim that Apple maintains a private WebKit tree with patches that don't get released to the public and that one or more of the private patches is required for WebKit to pass Acid2?It's the :hover event. If you hover the nose with the mouse, the nose turns blue.
The nose color changes when you put the mouse over the face.
Actually, that image is just showing the hover effect on the nose.
.nose :hover div { border-color: blue; }
In the CSS for Acid 2, you see:
So, Opera is doing exactly what it should.
a browser is free to render invalid pages ANY way it wants - as the standard doesn't say how to render non-standards
But the ultimate standard is the dollar. If your product renders non-conforming pages in the way that the novice user expects, then you are likely to earn more money.
Its not your broken html labelled as xhtml because you are fucking clueless actually. Its your broken css. If you haven't even the faintest clue what you are doing, then don't do it. You would have a better site if you used frontpage for fuck's sake.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
RIP Mitch Hedberg, we miss you
Remember kids, with great power comes great opportunity to abuse that power
Do stores have display computers where you live? I'm used to finding a product I'm interested in, and then walking over to a computer and reading reviews.
This doesn't help when each display computer is configured to use a DNS server that blocks hostnames outside of bestbuy.com.
Even if the store's display computers offer access to the whole Internet, wouldn't walking back and forth from the peripherals to a display computer cause store staff to become suspicious and brand me a demon customer?
Even if the store's display computers offer access to the whole Internet and a customer making heavy use of them is not branded a demon customer, then based on these reviews, how do I find a peripheral in my intended price range whose CD contains a Linux driver without separately testing every single model number that I see on the shelf of the store?
It would be great if there were webpages with good stuff that only are viewable with compliant web browsers. And by that I meen that they must pass acid 2 in order to render the page.
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.
Animated gif illustrating the rollover effect.
Than things like this. Hp.com and Worldofwarcraft.com have trouble with this browser.
On the introduction page they write:
Now these two messages seem completely contradictory to me. And especially if the second message which states that the CSS is invalid, is true, how can you expect browsers to render it correctly? If the CSS is invalid, than it seems to me it is completely undefinded how a browser should render this.
Can anybody enlighten me?
Only in the corporate world [does the dollar matter above all].
For one thing, browser developers need to eat.
More importantly, the corporate world pulls the strings of the government in too many highly developed countries. If Microsoft gets to a certain level of power over the United States government, then Microsoft could make a new "security" (that is, anti-fair-use) feature attractive to publishers in the next version of IE, make the feature exclusive using patent law, anti-circumvention law, or something else, and then con Congress into requiring that feature in web browsers distributed to the public. Remember the proposed CBDTPA and Microsoft's application for a patent on operating system support for the "trusted" computing that would have been required under the CBDTPA?
Ahh, that explains what I saw when Safari was first made to pass the ACID2 test.
I don't know if this helps at all, but when I view the page in Opera's User mode (as opposed to Author mode) which applies a custom stylesheet to the page, it renders just fine (all the text appears, anyhow; no scrolling problem).
When I come across badly rendered pages, applying user stylesheets solves the problem most of the time.
That's what makes me so crazy with all of the idiots who claim that browsers should accept fucked up code just like IE. Why???
Do you expect to write a program that won't compile and still have it run correctly? Or at all? If you write a letter in badly broken English, do you expect others to be able to read it and fully comprehend it? Then why in hell do you expect it out of a rendering engine???
Well, yes, it can. Can you?
The validator reports 47 errors on your page. Fix those first and then start working on why the page doesn't render properly.
awww, lynx doesn't pass the test :(
I'm not a programmer by any means, and I hardly know anything about html, which is why i'm asking this question I guess. Why is it so hard to make a browser that is compliant to standards? And is there an advantage to making a browser that doesn't comply? I've always wondered this.
if you took more time READING the article instead of spending hours looking at the screenshots you would have seen they intentionally hovered the mouse over t he nose to PROVE all aspects of the test.
I guess reading is not your forte.
ACID2 has nothing to do with w3c standards. ACID2 is a test of "proper behavior" when the CSS is completely invalid. It's "important" since most web lackeys can't write correct code... so browsers need a way to display improper code in a "proper" way -- that's what ACID2 is about.
Personally, I think the correct rendering of the ACID2 test is a blank page, or maybe an error message that says something like, "This is not a web page."
My other car is first.
In IE6 it looks like he was put through a chipper-shredder.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
The Nightlies of FireFox displays the Acid2 test better then 1.5.1.
Well, my question is why are you a tard? RTFA.
For some reason, this is what popped into my mind when I say the title of this article. :-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Go read the ACID2 site dude. The ACID2 test is testing for functionality that most web developers want. All functionality it tests for is defined in a web standard. It has absolutely nothing to do with testing broken css rendering at all.
Is Opera 9.0 released yet? I use Opera 8.51 myself and in the last week it has asked both my Windows box and linux box if I want to upgrade to 8.52. Nothing was mentioned about 9.0.
My understanding is that Firefox 2 (slated to come out sometime this summer) will have lots of front-end improvements, but Gecko is only taking fixes for egregious regressions/errors and new features that are very safe to implement. For various reasons, getting Firefox to pass Acid 2 requires some pretty major reworking of the layout engine, most of which has been deemed too unstable for Firefox 2's timeframe.
If you want to get a feel for how Firefox 3 will do, though, download a recent trunk nightly (not 1.8 branch). That's a much better reflection of the effort that's being put into Acid 2 compliance. On my machine, a recent build looks pretty good...the top-right of the head is wrong, and the mouth looks weird, but everything else is OK. You can debate to death whether their priorities are right I guess, but I just wanted to point out that Acid 2 work IS being done.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
I just came form the CeBit, where dozens of proud Microsoft representants were showing Windwows Vista, Office 2007 and of course the IE 7 ("We've got these 'tabs' now!" - yes, they said that).
I convinced one of them to open the ACID2 test in the IE7 (Google was blocked and he told me to use MSN Search, but I fired up Seekport). It was the worst rendering of the ACID2 I've ever seen. The entire screen was red, except for a few lines and dots here and there, and scrollbar in the nothing way over to the right.
Of course, the Microsoftie was quick to say, it's all only beta...
The nose is supposed to turn blue when hovering. BTW: The article points out that iCab & Konqueror don't fully pass (they should remove a scrollbar, which they don't). Nice going Opera :-)
I used to pass that test every weekend in college. Ahh, the good old days... Thanks to a huge bust in Kansas in 2000, most of today's college kids will never know what it feels like to contemplate the phantasmagoric infinities of nothingness... then again, they'll probably get a lot more work done.
... it's going to take me more than 5 minutes to fix up all those HTML validation errors - sorry.
While your page has HTML errors (like poorly nested tags) it's hard to know whether it is those very same HTML errors that are causing layout issues. More often than not it is, making people very reluctant to go to the effort of debugging a page until they are all fixed. When your markup validates you are far more likely to be able to pique people's interest that you have found a browser bug because it is one (or in this case 47) less thing to check.
If you DO manage to get that page to validate and still see the problem you might want to ask again though...
1) Using the up and down arrows on the page cause the page to scroll and the ACID2 test fails subsequently.
2) Reducing the desktop resolution down to 800x600 or lower causes the scalp to disconnect from the head. Thus causing ACID2 test to fail again.
Was there any official comment on this?
Well done for Opera passing the ACID2 test, although it's no longer a useful test for browser standards adherance. The best test was how versions of each browser released BEFORE the ACID2 test rendered it, so this race for "ACID2 Adherence" is useless. Who passes first isn't important, as they're only fixing a tiny subset of the entire standard. It no longer shows who is more standards compliant.
as an analogy, if you surveyed 100 employees of Google and found they were being paid less than 100 employees of Microsoft, and Google countered by giving those 100 employees a raise, it wouldn't change the original issue. The ACID2 test is simply a "survey" of web standards.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Once we include the fact that the CSS standard explicitly includes specs for handling invalid CSS we're on to something... Yes the CSS is invalid, but the w3c states how to handle it in those cases, displaying anything else is not according to spec.
What a bad idea this seems to me. Actually I do not understand why the W3C defines this behaviour. It leaves the door open for non-standard (embrace, extend,... anyone?) and/or invalid code, which I think is a bad idea to define in the standard itself. If a site really uses 100% valid code, then there won't be any problem, so I think this test is for somehow useless and largely overhyped.
I have developed a number of web sites and such, and absolutely hate having to use "hacks" to make things work. I'm a big proponent of having web standards, and I do not like having to develop code that have to be backwards compatible with older programs. Also, I think this is what web development should have been all along from the very beginning...none (or very little) of this browser compatibility crap.
Anyway, oftentimes when developing a site, if I make a page according to standards, and it works correctly in modern browsers (that is, not IE), I do not want to bend over backwards to make it work in IE. So when people tell me that something is broken in IE, I want to tell them that their browser is broken and that they should download a browser like Firefox or Opera or what have you. Obviously, this isn't a choice for many developers because many people still use IE, and many customers do not want to hear that they have to change browsers. What I want to know is, has anyone actually made a customer download a new browser because something that you or your company developed did not behave correctly in IE but behaved according to web standards? How successful were you in doing this? The reason I ask is that I always hear people proclaiming "standards!", or, "my browser passes Acid2!" but it doesn't seem of much use because I never hear of anyone actually forcing people to use any of these browsers that can understand up-to-date standards. I don't think we can make much progress in enforcing web standards without actually expecting standard-compliant web sites to render correctly, and alienating IE for as long as they are not compliant.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-er rors
Since a lot of people point to the fact that the Acid2 test contains invalid CSS I thought I'd point out that this was in fact intentional.
The reason why is described in the above link, CSS defines how a browser is supposed to behave when it finds invalid CSS.
Testing whether a piece of software behaves correctly when presented valid data is only half of bug-testing.
The other half is testing whether a piece of software behaves correctly when presented invalid data.
Acid2 covers both halves.
CSS is supposed to fail more gracefully than XML and XHTML and ignore only those parts that are incorrect.
You sound like you would welcome this crap.
No, the devil's advocate is just there to put the brakes on irrational exuberance. It results in a more rigorous basis for our argument, making for cleaner communication once we simplify it into Eloi language.
We ultimately decide who's in power as far as technology goes.
Then how did Hollywood manage to get the U.S. Congress to enact the DMCA bilaterally over the collective head of the technology industry?
On OSX 10.4.5, other than the scrollbars, iCab 3.0.2(Beta382) looks identical to Safari. I much prefer iCab showing the scrollbars rather than letting the webpage hide part of itself. I suppose iCab could make itself technically ACID2 compliant by having a "don't allow scrollbar hiding" checkbox in the preferences, which I could then leave checked.
Doesn't look like Safari has the ability tho show the scrollbar if you want it, but you can scroll it by clicking on the page and dragging up or down.
I don't like it when web pages can hide stuff.
Anybody have a screenshot of IE on Acid2?
It's just such a complex problem to tuckle that it seems to me (as a sideline spectactor) to be stupid to block the entire Firefox train just for it. They are working on it.
A valid statement but the fact is that even if I remove the code causing all those errors the page doesn't render as expected when using auto margins. That and XHTML Strict has some retarded factors such as requiring form input elements be in a block containing tag of some sort and not allowing target attributes on links. Those things aren't going to validate but will render just fine.
As you can see, if you look, fixing those minor errors had no effect whatsoever. The CSS also validates with the exception of CSS3 and browser-specific features. If setting element opacity is causing a browser to misalign an element then they have a problem even if they don't support the opacity attribute.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Funny that, if you follow the VERY FIRST LINK on that page it does NOT validate!!
o m%2Fworldwide%2F
;)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.microsoft.c
Just about the kind of tactics I expect from M$ crapware. Do just enough work to make things look like they are OK on the surface, then do a crap job on the underlying details... thank you for helping proove my point!
You are absolutely correct! That IE version is so much more cluttered, and slow! My, now my entire life has changed for the better since I can see less on the screen, and take little breaks while the screen redraws...
Shawn's Tech Articles
Back in the day, when Mosaic was a hot new browser, some tags were not supposed to be closed. You wouldn't close any of: br, p, img, hr, li
If you did close those unclosable tags, the page might not render right. Closing tags sometimes made parts of the page disappear.
Animated .GIFs prove IE 6 passes the acid2 test! God bless those programmers at Microsoft! ;-)
Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
The more I hear about this test, the more annoyed I become with it. Sure, correct rendering is important, but the number of hours wasted to make this one little corner-case example work in the various browsers would probably be better spent improving CSS in general, rather than focusing on a super-specific example. I would rather a browser rendered most of CSS pretty correctly, rather than the 1% used here completely correctly.
Well said, well said. Shame my mod points expired yesterday.
Maybe Adrian Carmack works for MS since getting fired from id?
Before Safari became the first browser to render it correctly, how did they rendered it for reference? Does the W3C has their own browser or something like a css renderer, or it was just created with an imaging aplication ?
Only a few parts are missing: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=acid2
Firefox 2.0 should render it perfectly.
That Netscape and after that IE accepted "bad code" was just great!! In fact i think their versions of HTML were the first fault-tolerant computer language and everybody could hump some page together in notepad.
This made the web a medium for everybody, not just the c++ boys. Of course now, instead of making the web easier to author, web standards become more and more incomprehensible (XML stuff for "this is my dog"-pages??) and the web shall be ruled by "professionals" or by idiots who should swallow some stupid Dreamweaver or iWeb instead of getting a chance to learn something.
BTW: Spoken, human language is highly flexible in interpretation and expression. Computer languages are not. If you ask for "syntactically correct" human language, you should read "Computer Power and Human Reason" by Weizenbaum.
It was a theoretical design. They knew what a standards compliant browser should do, and so could predict that this convoluted code would make a face. They could render it on paper even though there weren't any browsers at the time that would do it.
The image to match probably was created in an imaging program.
screenshot
I just checked it out, Mac OS X 10.4.5, Safari 2.0.3. I don't have Opera, I can't check that.
So if Safari passed the acid test, is the scrolling bug a flaw in the test, as in a browser that correctly implements the standard will still display a scrolling bug, or did Safari not really pass?
More music, fewer hits
From the ACID 2 page...
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.
That's it. Encourage developers to support invalid coding by designers. That's the way to encourage web standards!
Konqueror also claims to be the second browser to have achieved compliance.... http://www.kde.org/announcements/visualguide-3.5.p hp
Does it really matter? Does anybody really care?
When will firefox be compliant?
What about MS Exploder?
Erm, no. A browser misrenders a site by accepting valid input and generating out-of-spec output, such as by failing the Acid2 test. However, if the input is not deterministically parseable then all bets are off.
If you want to add 2 plus 2, but enter "2+3" into your calculator, would you get mad at it for giving an answer you didn't expect? Even if one brand of calculator often guesses that you really meant "2+2" and silently gives you that answer instead, I fail to see how you could expect another to do the same (and then claim that it "miscalculates" because it doesn't apply the same random guesswork as the first).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You misspelled "ignore".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No, it shouldn't be. CSS is not a programming language. Its a presentation stylesheet. If you have an older browser that doesn't recognize a new CSS attribute, it shouldn't ignore the entire stylesheet like you stupidly suggest. It should ignore that invalid attribute. This is part of the CSS spec, and is required behaviour. Quit being so stupid.
WRT to your CSS: orange isn't a valid color! : ) (sits down and breaks apart page...)
The centring problem can be boiled down to the following:The rules over how the distance for the left edge is calculated in this case are fairly complicated. Here's what point 1 says:
We can read that as saying the "left becomes where the inside box's left edge is under more normal conditions" (I could be wrong though but I think that's the only sensible interpretation). Now here's that "but" you were expecting:
Browsers are *allowed* to guess at where it would have gone. Thanks to this, a guess that doesn't match up with where it would have been isn't actually wrong - it's just not what you would have wanted. So Opera is guessing wrong (it "guesses" right with actual values in the margins) but this is actually allowed by the spec.
I don't have the testcase to hand but basically it had one div in it. Now to ensure the right thing happened I would nest a div inside that one div and move the position: fixed (and any borders or background colours etc.) to that inner one. In tests that did what I was expecting because the left edge was already in the right place.
Summary, your code is (I use this word reservedly given some of the hacks) "right" it's just that there's more than one answer...
HTH