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!"."
RTFA and you'll see this.
"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..."
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
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
Could you be a little more vague? It's not unexpected for browsers with different rendering engines to render things differently, especially for web interfaces, very especially if it comes from Microsoft.
Moreover, it's a fallacy to expect a browser to "work in all situations". I'm sure there are plenty of real-world situations where Firefox fails as well, and where Safari were to succeed in it's place. It's tests like ACID2 that determine a browsers capability to handle all situations.
The problem Safari is having with Exchange is very likely due to poor coding. Considering it's from Microsoft (you said Exchange web interface, right?), I'm sure Microsoft implemented a slew of hacks to have Firefox compliance (Microsoft is well known for improper web developing practices, to put it lightly).
I was merely pointing out what the article said. And since the Opera guy points out the page *isn't* supposed to scroll, I imagine a scrolling bug would indeed qualify as incorrect rendering, so the artifacts in your screenshot would merely support Opera's point.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Provide a link to the image, or people here won't understand your subtle sarcasm. :)
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:
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The problems with Opera's JS arise in three situations:
1) The site specifically blocks out Opera due to scripts 5-6 years old, but happily copypasted throughout the web project by brainless "web designers". Or server-side sniffing, like Yahoo did and still does, AFAIK.
See here for example, one that I found just a few minutes ago when informing myself of the latest and greatest Bollywood hit: http://www.rangdebasanti.net/
Their JS code contains this:
Use Proxomitron or Opera's cloaking techniques to get rid of the "Opera" part in UA string, and what do you know, the site works perfectly!
2) The site doesn't block Opera per se, but exhibits "if IE or Netscape" behaviour. Of course Firefox deals with those, as it descends from Netscape. Opera doesn't, and Opera is not IE, either, so it end up in no man's land...
3) The site has JS errors, and Opera is pretty strict when parsing JS, more so than Firefox or IE.
Honestly, Opera does not have any JS issues. None whatsoever. It's brainless webmonkeys who have issues with their JavaScript.
It's the :hover event. If you hover the nose with the mouse, the nose turns blue.
It doesn't support event handling as defined by the DOM specifications. My comment is perfectly clear when you don't cut the quote off prematurely.
Referring to Internet Explorer's proprietary DHTML interface as a "DOM", while technically accurate, is misleading as in common use, the term "DOM" refers to the W3C specifications.
How about a little maturity?
a) No it doesn't, many Internet Explorer memory leaks are an artifact of the JScript engine being unable to refcount properly.
b) You implied that Internet Explorer had a "solid" DOM. That is not true regardless of the quality of Firefox's DOM. Internet Explorer's DOM doesn't get more "solid" if you distract people by talking about other browsers.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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.