Slashdot Mirror
First Look At the ACID3 Browser Test
ddanier writes "Now that all major browsers have mastered the ACID2 test (at least in some preview versions), work on ACID3 has begun. The new test will focus on ECMAScript, DOM Level 3, Media Queries, and data: URLs. 100 tests will be put into functions each returning either true or false depending on the result of the test. The current preview of ACID3 is still missing 16 tests."
u-bend
Can't we acid test the ACID Test server?
:-)
If it can't hold up, maybe it needs some work...
Finally, the bigger browsers are ACID2 compatible now. But suddenly those fuckers release a new ACID test. Now everybody's standard incompatible again. Let's see who succesfully implements ACID3 first.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Final scores of course are subject to change on the final test:
* - script takes long enough to run that browser prompts you to kill it.
Safari 3.0.4 (Windows) hangs at 60, Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.11 messes up so badly the result can't be read...
The test looks interesting, for sure. And it's going to raise the game for standards compliance!
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
... and looks somewhat like the reference image...
Opera 9.2.4 (Windows) reaches 55 (but looks horrible)...
Firefox 3 looks like the best shot at it so far.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Something I always wanted to know (applies to the older Acid tests, too): how do they render the reference image? Is someone creating them by hand? How do we know no mistake was made when creating the reference image?
Yes, testing can never prove a program correct. On the other hand, do you think you'd get anywhere trying to prove that anything about any browser is correct using formal methods? Especially when the source code for most browsers is not even publicly available.
The Acid tests are also not really about finding obscure bugs, but about demonstrating which basic features work and which ones do not work. After all major browsers pass an Acid test, web developers can attempt to use the features tested by the Acid test. That is when the obscure bugs will be found.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Are you telling me Firefox isn't a major browser? I just tried Acid2 on my FF 2.0.0.1.1 on Windows and it still looks like crap. How far behind is it?
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Well, for IE6 it reports 100% of the standards as I can prove here! In your face Firefox!
http://stoploudness.org/
Excellent. These two, especially, need to be tightened up (and in some cases, fixed) across the browsers.
Konqueror 3.5.8 on KDE 3.5.8 (Debian Sid, AMD64; packages from Debian repository) fails with a segmentation fault.
But there's a newer version in the repository, so I'm going to upgrade and see what happens.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Also, with the emphasis on ECMA script and animation, it'll raise standards and compliance for games.
Acid2 tests a particular interpretation of how the standards should be implemented.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Because it focuses on the tip of the iceberg, the symptoms, not the disease. I wonder how many of the browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, instead of being engineered to meet the specs.
Funny, in the version of Acid 3 I tested a week ago. Konqueror got to 85%. Konqueror 4.0 now stops on some weird embedding of text/plain assumption the test makes.
:)
More fun acid hacking for me
That would be pointless. If browsers are getting mere hacks to display the specific acid test page correctly, the jig will be up when web developers start using the features tested by that acid test and discover that the features don't really work. I suspect that no browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, as that tweaking wouldn't fool web developers for any significant period of time.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I just noticed this now, I tried to view it but it stopped and said 1/100 passed, though i was supre Konqueror couldn't be that wrong sicne KHTML was first engine to display Acid2 correctly (though not in Konqueror).
I'm wondering whether the Konqueror devs will notice and fix this, since a drop of 84% in that amount of time is definitely messed up.
You uncultured clod.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Your medical analogy is apt. Black-box testing is pointless in exactly the same way that going to a doctor when you are sick is pointless. The symptoms are all you have initially to indicate there is any disease or what it's nature might be. Those with clear-box knowledge (doctors or developers) can use the symptoms as a starting point fur further inquiry to diagnose the underlying problem.
I know what theory says about testing and correctness and all that. It doesn't work that way in the real world. Testing shouldn't be the only technique used to produce quality software, but it is very very far from a pointless pursuit.
You are wrong to assume that (real) validation suites do not exist. There are several, and they are very comprehensive. The Acid tests are not validation suites, but that doesn't mean validation suites do not exist.
Safari displays the reference rendering jes' fine!
Oh, wait...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Look, I don't mean to be getting you down about this, but I'm fairly certain this is the only time such a phrase has been uttered with such enthusiasm. Ever. Congratulations of a sort are in order.
If you hold down shift and click the A in "Acid" you will get a report on the number and details of all the failed tests.
The Acid Test is all about seeing if browsers can properly render intentionally mis-written, broken code, including things that I find it hard to believe that anybody would do on propose on a real-world page. The important question isn't whether or not browsers can render the Acid Test correctly, but whether or not they can render 99.44% of all pages out there correctly. Personally, I don't care if my browser can render such malformed pages correctly or not, or if any other browser can. If somebody's really going to write such crap code and put it on the web, the only response they deserve is letters to the webmaster telling them their page is garbled.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I don't know what "pule" is, but we are about a score of IE versions away from seeing conformance with the new test:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=394442&cid=21757950
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
don't you people remember?
on the day of that demonstration all other browsers failed the test - all with the same error...
there is only one explanation for this: the test had been changed on the day of that demonstration
in effect IE8 did NOT pass the real ACID2 test - only some bogus test that was set up for the media...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
When Firefox makes news on this there are daily builds to test, source code to inspect and compile. One can see the progress first-hand.
There is no build of Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 to test. You are accepting something unverifiable as reality and thus talking about these browsers as if they're all on the same level. This suggests a new low: believing the illegal monopolist who tells you that their vaporware behaves in accordance with published publicly-implementable standards.
Digital Citizen
Firefox gives 59/100 - Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071204 Ubuntu/7.10 (gutsy) Firefox/2.0.0.11
Konqueror-kde4 gives 1/100 (!) - Konqueror 4.00.00 (KDE 4.0.0)
Konqueror FAIL - crashes, screencap shows that it says "scripting must be enabled" even when it is
FWIW