Slashdot Mirror
Acid3 Test Released
An anonymous reader writes ""The Web Standards Project has announced the release of Acid3, the latest test designed to expose flaws in the implementation of mature Web standards in browsers. 'By making sure their software adheres to the test, the creators of these products can be more confident that their software will display and function with Web pages correctly both now and with Web pages of the future. The Acid3 Test is designed to test specifications for Web 2.0, and exposes potential flaws in implementations of the public ECMAScript 262 and W3C Document Object Model 2 standards.' Screenshots at the Drunken Fist site show the success of Safari 3 (which originally scored 31, but is now Scoring 87/100) IE6, and IE7 (massive fail, of course)'." There are additional discussions of the new test happening around the web.
It gets... 17. Heard at Microsoft "ACID3? We just passed ACID2! AH CRAP!"
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
I get a 51/100 with firefox 2....wonder how 3 will do.
Why does slashdot keep linking to dead blogs?
The actual test is http://acid3.acidtests.org/ here.
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
Yes, biased towards conforming with open international published standards, rather than to any specific vendor's implementation. It just happens the best of the best web browsers try to conform to the same standards, scoring much higher than Microsoft's offering which is deliberately designed to break from the standard to ensure lockin.
Sam ty sig.
My browser won't render the page properly.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
90/100.
Getting pretty close.
The Mothership
I just tried it on Opera 9.5 Beta, build 9755. I got a 60/100. Then I tried again and got a 61/100. Then a 60/100 on a third try.
All of the rectangles are grey (two different shades), the test name is red and does not have a shadow, and there is an x in the upper right hand corner.
Not quite. When none of the browsers are getting 100/100 and the only browser to get over a 60 is a safari beta, I think it's safe to say that it's a test designed so that every browser will fail. That's the point: they're giving solid targets to browser developers and giving a concise score to everyone else so that they know where the browsers stand in the next generation of web tech.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that complaining about it being designed so that IE would fail is like saying that American Gladiators was designed so that my 8 year old brother would fail. Sure, it has that effect in the end, but the fact that he's under-equipped for such a competition isn't American Gladiators' fault.
The Acid tests would be a lot more productive if they were oriented more towards the practical non-compliance issues than obscure ones. A back-asswards JavaScript implementation or a horrible box model is more of an issue than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup. Total compliance is great, but it's much more pragmatic to get the fundamental issues fixed first.
No this is a measurement of compliance to international standards.
I haven't seen anybody answer konqueror yet!
I tried it in Konqi 3.5.8 with Gentoo. It asked me what I wanted to do with "empty.txt" then segfaulted. Anyone fairing better?
Comment on your analogy:
I think the mere fact that American Gladiators is considered tv-worthy indicates that we, as a nation, have failed. Also, sorry about your brother. That was really brutal when they knocked him into the pool.
Just sayin'.
-G
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
Conclusion: ACID3 test didn't pass Slashdot test. Too bad.
... and 64/100 for Firefox 3.0b5pre ("Minefield")
See http://browsershots.org/http://acid3.acidtests.org/ for the test in 75 different browsers.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 also lists the results for the developversions of browsers:
Webkit: 87
Firefox: 67
I got a 100/100 on the reference image.
Actually, trying to make IE fail it wasn't an aim: the aim was to include tests that one of Firefox, Safari, and Opera fails. If IE happens to fail them too, so be it.
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 with thunderbrowse scores 52/100 ;]
I got a 100% score rendering Acid3 on IE8! All I had to do was add the following line to the top of the page!
/>
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=8"
Once that meta tag is there, all web pages look just as they're supposed to! I'm so glad Microsoft finally fixed this whole compatibility fiasco.
640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
Someone again try to explain to me the definition of web 2.0, and don't tell me flash.
I personally think it's the move of the entire web (the content that matters) to valid XHTML, CSS, etc (of course everything is controlled dynamically by PHP/Perl/whatever you want). I also hope there can be an open standard soon to do the same functionality that Youtube's Flash container that runs on everything and that everyone agrees upon. Silverlight is obviously closed and so is Flash. We need an open source mid-quality (and high-quality) video player that loads quickly and is OS-independent, just like Flash. I think that is all that is missing in this 'Web 2.0'.
Faster than FF3 beta 4, much much faster than FF2 or IE7.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Actually, it's tests that one, or preferably more than one, of Firefox, Safari, Opera or IE fail.
Why? The test expressly picked things that one of Opera, Safari, and Firefox would fail, preferably more than one, and tried to balance the number of tests each would fail.
Put another way it looked really hard for things to test that would give browsers low scores.
There's nothing to say that the things it tests are necessarily useful. Some are, some are not.
Yes, there is almost no correlation between how well a browser does on Acid tests and how well it renders pages on the web. The purpose of the Acid tests is to break the chicken-and-egg problem of web development. The web developers tend not to use features unless all popular browsers support them. On the other hand, the developers of the web browsers tend not to add features that are not used by web developers. Without anyone willing to go first, the implementation and use of new web standards stalls.
The purpose of the Acid tests is to break this logjam by using these new standards in a very public way so that web developers will be motivated to implement them. The "my browser does better than your browser" posturing is a bit immature, but as a side effect it popularizes the faults of browsers and motivates the browser developers to fix them. Then, the web developers use the new features after they are well supported.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The ideal here actually is that if a reasonable number of mainstream browsers scored 100 on the test, web developers could use all of the features the test exercises and have a reasonable expectation that their page will display correctly for end users.
The test is about making life better for web developers, and about making the web more interoperable, instead of having sites which jump through browser predicated hoops, or restrict users to "IE7.0 or newer on 32-bit Windows" or the like. Thus having your favorite browser, and your least favorite browser score well is in the best interests of all web users.
If they actually implemented the standards well, they wouldn't have to worry about specific tests, they would just do well on them by default.
Have you ever tried reading the HTML/CSS specs? They're huge and often vaguely worded. There were often sections that just weren't intuitive, and the only real approach to implementing them was to just figure out what other browser did and copy it. The specs were created by people who have no intention of implementing them themselves, and it really shows.
You're exactly correct that the Acid tests test specific browser flaws. They are testing exactly the flaws that plague web developers. That way, when all popular browsers pass the Acid tests, web developers don't need to work around the flaws in each different browser. We all benefit by getting web sites with fancy new features that work in all browsers. The scores are not meaningful, but are a way to motivate the developers of web browsers to fix their flaws so they're not embarrassed by a low or non-passing score.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
This was already explained, and the behavior should have been updated as per a previous slashdot story.
IE8 fails when it runs in quirks mode, and passes when in standards mode. Before it would run in quirks by default, and only change behavior when it visited certain key sites, or sites had a tag.
That url would be one of those "key sites"
However if the previous slashdot story is true, IE8 should eventually operate in standards mode by default, so it will pass both.
Seriously... if no browser gets 100/100, how do the test creators generate the reference image? And how do they know there are no bugs in their test? I'm genuinely curious...
Is if there was a way to not only get a copy of the acid test fails, but a quick list of which browsers fail which test and what that should mean. So that us legions of OS coders or even Mozilla, Opera, or Safari's own guys could get busy and fix it in their next releases.
Anyone have this or know some web location where it's happening?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
"Web 2.0 is a bullshit buzzword made up to describe everything new that is happening on the web. It is mostly meaningless marketing speak. Treat it as such."
I agree, and thought this ever since I heard the term, so I hereby propose abolishment of the term.
yes, looks like the acid tests are failing the slashdot test.
Both work for me with Safari 3...
Magic
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
That said, I looked at a couple of the notes on Bugzilla for Firefox and they are already looking at the bug list... wonder who will be the fastest to fix the most....
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I believe the standard for the last 16 tests were webkit and firefox trunk must fail.
So IE or Opera failing was actually regarded as insufficient.
I touch computers in naughty places
The reference implementation is Ian Hickson's brain.
I touch computers in naughty places
The FBI have their own browser, specially developed in house in collaboration with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jimmy Wales, Linus Torvalds, RMS, Kevin Mitnick and Hugh Jackman (not many people realise this, but 'Swordfish' was actually a documentary on his life).
This browser is the absolute mutt's nuts of browsers. Not only does it render every web standards test 100%, it has done so since version 0.05b (now up to 3.1). By that I mean that version 0.05b will render Acid3 100/100 out of the box (and, I can assure you, Acid4 when it is released).
Anyway, the FBI don't release it to the general public as it would make the web-browsing experience too enjoyable and, when people stopped doing their business due to too much time spent online, then society as we know it would crumble (the US sub-prime disaster and Enron were directly linked to a copy which was smuggled out of the FBI and used by senior partners in influential financial firms). They do produce a *png for Acid3 though and email it back for the reference image.
So now you know.
Perhaps, I am missing the point of these acid tests. I'm not a web developer by trade, so I don't claim to be an expert on CSS. From personal experience, CSS has allowed me to use much less complex HTML in the little web publishing I have done. I never seem to get consistent results when I test my pages in different browsers. I hope that these "standards" Acid tests lead to greater compatibility across browsers.
Do these tests increase compatibility by pushing the envelope on new standards, or are they just a browser-war pissing contest?
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
They don't. They read through their spec carefully and presumably do it by hand. I believe with the first ACID test their was a bug with the reference image that was reported by someone implementing a browser.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Why Isn't IE8 Passing ACID2?
Basically, it fails because of XSS on the other sites.
When was Opera ever standards king? Before Opera 7 I couldn't use Opera because it couldn't reflow web pages correctly to handle DHTML. The Mozilla and IE of the day could handle reflow just fine. I couldn't use Opera 8 because it didn't support XSLT, and one website that I frequented used XSLT. The IE and Firefox of the day could handle XSLT just fine. Opera's got good standards support, generally about as good as Firefox or Safari, but it seems like it's often playing catch-up in at least one area. But standards king? I think not.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.