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!"
the test is here.
i'm getting a 50/100 in Firefox.
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.
3b3 gets a 61. Opera 9.5 is the best I tested at 65. Safarai 3.0.4 for Windows got a 39. IE7 got a 12 and also managed to mangle the page the most.
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.
Woo hoo! IE 6.0 displays this just fine: http://acid3.acidtests.org/reference.html Read 'em and weep Firefox!
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.
Interestingly, I'm not getting an 87 with Safari 3.0.4- I'm getting a 39.
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
No this is a measurement of compliance to international standards.
I'm not sure how many actually knows this. *shrug*
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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.
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.
The test consists largely of 100 JavaScript tests designed to throw an assertion on failure and return a certain value on pass. The score is how many of the tests out of 100 pass. You can see which tests failed by clicking or shift-clicking the A in Acid3 after the test completes. In the sense that each test can relatively independently pass or fail (although some tests depend on previous tests), yes, it is a quantitative test.
The other part of the test is rendering the Acid3 text with shadow and the colored rectangles. By seeing how the Acid3 test fails in many other browsers, you can see that it can also render X, Fail, and a picture of a cat on failure of some rendering tests, typically in red so they stand out.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Hey, me too. Are you also using Netscape Navigator 4.01?
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'.
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.
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.
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...
yes, looks like the acid tests are failing the slashdot test.
It's misleading for the summary to say "Safari" gets 87/100 when the version of Safari that does that is not yet released.
Run current WebKit nightlies to get the high score now. The changes will be in the upcoming Safari 3.1 release.
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.
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.