Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Beta Touts Advanced Engine, Solves 8 Flaws
nandemoari writes "Mozilla may be this year's winner in the 'browser battles' as they ready the next beta version of their tour-de-force, Firefox 3.1. Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox — a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users.
As this year's crop of new browsers emerges, enhanced features are becoming secondary to one thing: speed. Mozilla is nearly ready to release the next beta version of Firefox 3.1 to the public for testing, and insiders predict that it will outpace even Safari 4, which has been the fastest browser in wide release since its beta began last week." It looks like they also will be upping the next major release to v3.5 to better show the significance of the release.
First posts suckerz!
Firefox 3.1 Scrapped?
So Firefox 3.1 scores a 93 on the Web Standards Project's Acid3 standards compliance test. Firefox 3.0.6 only scores 71. Of course, you can't get any better than Safari 4 beta's score: a perfect 100. Or Opera 10 Beta's 100. So why doesn't Mozilla get on the ball?
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
...how many critical vulnerabilities have they INTRODUCED?
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Right-click is a nightmare on linux platforms (don't know if it affects others, I'm exclusively a linux shop these days).
It randomly follows an action rather than bringing up the menu about one time in ten. Opening up email programs, choosing a new window, bringing up link properties... needs fixing, badly. (Workaround for fellow sufferers - install mouse gestures add-on)
Also it seems really really processor-hungry on one of my machines. Wish I knew why.
I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks. My firefox process is currently using 1.1GB of RAM and I have to restart it about twice a day just to free up some RAM. I've only got about 4 extensions installed and I've tried disabling each of them in turn to ensure the problem didn't lie in an extension.
Interesting how stories spin out differently depending on the browser in question. If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.
Still crashes on me everytime I try to close it. 2.0 did not.
Firefox 3.x is STILL straddled with the "Awesome Bar" AKA the "Awful Bar". At what point will they recognize the groundswell of DISLIKE for this part of the browser and just go back to the old 2.x behavior?
Unfortunately, the manner in which they implemented the Awful Bar means that it's impossible to go back unless you want to program your own version. You basically have to DISABLE the bar entirely, simply sacrificing the URL bar for anything other than typing URLs into.
I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
It's wonderful that adding a single browser to face down internet explorer has turned this into a race for speed that will make internet more usable and awesome than ever.
And best of all it's made websites more compatible than ever, meaning that we're free to use those "other" browsers! Thanks Mozilla/Firefox!
</hippie>
It seems like 3.1 has been stuck at beta 2 for several months. This is while Chrome and Safari have leapt ahead with the taps and top interface and other improvements.
I still prefer Firefox, but the difference in screen real estate between Firefox and Safari Beta 4 is jarring.
This space left intentionally blank.
I love Firefox, I currently use it... but only one question : 8 flaws solved / how many vulnerabilities not solved?
I can't call that English
Please fix your flash plugin. Seems that once a day if I go to a page with considerable flash (which is most pages these days), the browser will crash and when I examine the crashfile, it's *gasp* always you. I've reinstalled flash and FF 3.0.6.....
I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.
I have the exact opposite experience.
My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.
Even if it crept up to 500 MB, I wouldn't mind much (I'm using almost 1 GB of core and 800 megs of cache ATM). If it was always fast and snappy, I'd be much happier.
I mean, come on---I'm having 50-60 tabs open but I'm only looking at one at any given moment in time...
Also, when it restores the last session, why doesn't it load the tabs in MRU order? Does it think I want to look at the tab that's been stale for two weeks?
Fix the raw speed and be smart about CPU allocation so it does the important things first and appears faster. Then fix the memory.
Anecdote + (-Anecdote) = 0 data ;-)
by the time you install all of the essential add-ons to firefox, it becomes slow again.
a few things I can't live without are adblock, rip, forecastfox, ietab, twitterfox, firebug, foxmarks and ubiquity.
With these installed, the browser is no longer fast.
Oh well.
They're using their grammar skills there.
This article sounds like empty hype to me.
I still use Firefox, and will continue to do so for the time being. The reason being adblock and flashblock, exclusively. I am not as happy with Firefox as I was when I first used the 0.8 something version. I feel Mozilla have lost their way. Too much bloat like the awesome bar -- which frankly just does not work for me at all, it's an hindrance, not a help.
I want to use chrome, because of the multithreading. Firefox absolutely needs to have multithreading to compete. It can be a true dog to use if you have tabs that reload in the background.
The second that there is some sort of adblock and flashblock for Chrome I'm gone. No more Firefox for me.
I'm sorry to have to do that. I actually bought the firefox T-Shirt. I was active in the GetFirefox campaign. But now, I use it only because of the extensions.
Please, Mozilla get your act together. Now more useless features that should really be extensions, and get multithreading sorted. I want to be a Firefox fan again.
Has anyone heard when or if Tamarin is going into FF at any point in time? I checked the site quite vigorously the other day and could find no estimates, time-lines, or even projected version.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
It looks like they also will be upping the next major release to v3.5 to better show the significance of the release.
Oh god. I thought we were passed this. It felt like only yesterday that linux distrobutions were playing the "Ha Ha we're going to one-up your distrobution with our version number" game. It really got out of hand. I anticipate seeing the same thing happening soon with the current crop of browsers.
Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users.
Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?
(I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)
I know all the new JavaScript engine is supposedly much "faster", but I don't see it in normal use.
Compared to Google Chrome, Firefox 3.1 is dog slow and I don't understand why? I only have a 4 add-ons, including adblock plus. I use firefox on 3 different computers, and they are all much slower compared to Chrome. Every time I use Chrome I am shocked how the pages render instantly... I would switch if Adblock for Chrome were available and a few other features I love in Firefox.
"Microsoft is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of IE -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted IE users."
slashdot users laugh at the propaganda
but when a firefox shill says
"Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users."
slashdot puts it in the story summary reverently
propaganda is propaganda is propaganda. no matter the source, even if you love the source. just say "firefox fixed some bugs." and leave the sleazy ad copy out of it please
what next?
"the exploit found in firefox is a feature, not a bug" maybe?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I concur - the Mighty Mouse is not so mighty, Apple's worst product in a long time. I have the problem you describe in Safari 3 and 4 beta. Plus scrolling down has worn out somehow.
Right clicking on the Mighty Mouse appears to have been designed by someone who only used one-button mice before. You have to pretty much take your fingers off of the mouse and only click on the right side of the mouse. It would have made much more sense to make it signal a right click if the right "button" area of the mouse was being touched, regardless of what's happening on the left. It sucks, and they really should fix it (probably could be done with a firmware update).
As for the scroll ball, I have used the "turn the mouse upside down and run the scroll ball around on your pants leg" method with some success. It only works until you get something inside the scroll ball that won't come out. My primary Mighty Mouse (I have four, two are bluetooth and on the same desk) would not scroll right, and even throwing it at the floor and wall didn't work, so I decided to break the damned thing open.
It's actually not hard to crack the mouse open, if you don't mind breaking that little collar that runs around the bottom of the mouse. There are two flexible connections that you have to disconnect, but you can remove the scroll ball mechanism with a small phillips screwdriver, disassemble it, clean it out, and reassemble it. I did it a month ago with no further problems. There is an order to reassembling the mouse and not having one of the flexible connections pull out, but it's not hard to trial and error your way through.
Putting moderation advice in your
But only Firefox. Somehow Konqueror and Opera manage to survive the crash* of one measly plugin while the great and mighty Firefox goes down in flames.
*Chrome's allegedly designed to do so, too. Although the one time I tried it shortly after release it almost immediately crashed when, you guessed it, Flash decided to take the day off
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Jeez... I'm sure glad I'm not the only the only one who has been seeing this in the recent FF release. I've been seeing right-clicks ignored and then when you try again -- and successfully perform what you wanted to do -- the basic right-click menu would pop up, requiring yet another click to make it disappear. Intensely annoying. I was afraid that my beloved Kensington track ball was going bad. Glad to hear it's not a hardware problem.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Seriously, do you really think Apple and Opera won't be upgrading their browsers for the next 9 months?
"Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox â" a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users."
Yeah, because in the world of fanboys, this is just terrific news. Where as, if IE fixed 8 serious flaws before IE8 came out, they'd be all "LOL MICRO$OFT". Hypocrisy is grand, aint it?
If you want a secure browser, blasting IE and then looking towards Firefox is incredibly naive and shows ignorance to the facts.
I'm just so proud that more Firefox security holes have been plugged. WHY were they there in the first place?
Seems slashdot didn't post this story I submitted, but State of Colorado Calls Firefox insecure, IE Safe.
The meetings notes says they are "considering" changing the numbering. Until there's an official announcement saying that they are changing the numbering this shouldn't be taken as anything other than "yup, we discussed it".
From the wiki page:
"Version numbering
* considering 3.1 -> 3.5 to indicate increased scope
* will need to figure out how to update all our tools effectively (build, bugzilla, AMO, etc.) -- detailed plan coming this week
* beta 3 will still be shipped under 3.1 moniker
* labels existing increase in scope vs original 3.1 plan, not a willingness to further increase scope
* next step is to take it to dev-planning "
So yeah... it sounds like they are serious about changing the numbering but it looks like they need to finish crossing all the t's and dotting the i's first.
Insert Sig Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Web_browser_usage_share.svg
if/ when the bulk of that piechart is firefox, rather than ie, revisit what you just said
you think microsoft doesn't patch bugs it finds first? really?
more ie bugs are found in the wild, simply because the rewards for finding such bugs are much larger
i'm sick of mac and firefox fanboys claiming their browser/ os is somehow more secure. its not more secure, its just less attacked, because less people use it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/05/1328244
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We've changed this user's browser from Mozilla Select Grain to Microsoft Premium Blend, let's see if he notices;
Microsoft may be this year's winner in the 'browser battles' as they ready the next beta version of their tour-de-force, Internet Explorer 8. Microsoft is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of IE -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted IE users. As this year's crop of new browsers emerges, enhanced features are becoming secondary to one thing: speed. Microsoft is nearly ready to release the next beta version of IE to the public for testing, and insiders predict that it will outpace even Safari 4, which has been the fastest browser in wide release since its beta began last week."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Most people do.
There will always be conservative types whining about how things were so good back in the days.
Get over it.
My firefox has been running for 8 days, has adblock, flashblock and firebug running, and it using 230 MB of RSS at the moment. Have you tried removing all your extensions and seeing if it improves? I expect you saw this article last year:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars
offending line.
Step 2: press "DEL".
There is no step 3.
I think everyone who uses Firefox and receives the very regular updates fixing critical issue after critical issue knows just how rubbish the Firefox security is!
As so many others have said, it's hard to see how fixing horrendous buffer overflows that allow arbitrary code execution is something to be celebrated.
The speed boost is attributed to TraceMonkey. I've been testing nightly builds for a while now with TraceMonkey enabled and they're generally outperformed (barely) by Webkit nightly builds, and pretty much trounced by Chrome. So if the author is betting on TraceMonkey to give Firefox as massive lead in Javascript performance then he may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
He then raves about how eight critical flaws will be fixed in the upcoming version. Say what? That means there are eight critical unpatched flaws in the current released code that have yet to be repaired. That's a bad thing, not a good thing.
I know it is horrible. But I discovered that it is the duration that spoils the fun. If you keep the right mouse button down for a fraction of a second longer, it works as expected.
We have used Firefox since before version 1, but firefox 3 has a serious problem that forces us to use other browswers for gaming. About every 20 minutes it locks up and pages to the hard drive for about 30 seconds. A pain when your typing, but death in a game. Every one of our Windows boxes exhibit this same Firefox "feature", with no hope in site.
Firefox isn't leaking memory, it's storing lots of pages in its cache so that when you go back from slashdot.org/story to slashdot.org, it can satisfy the request out of cache. If you would like to disable this, navigate to about:config and set
"browser.cache.memory.enable" to false. See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.enable for information.
For my part, all of my machines have way more RAM that they can possibly use (4GB = $25, average usage ~50% even with Vista SuperFetch). RAM is cheap, network access is expensive -- it makes sense to use as much caching as possible.
you lose the war: firefox is exploitable, regardless of the technicality you use differentiate how it is exploitable from how ie is exploitable
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Test Driven Development is a very useful practice. The test suite describes the standard unambiguously (and, hopefully, accurately :-) and then you develop until all the tests work.
From TFA:
"The beta Firefox 3.1 will still have a few bugs to work out, but Mozilla officials have promised that eight of the security flaws found in the current browser, six of which have been rated critical, will be fixed in the updated version. The most serious of these vulnerabilities are already being repaired, and can be downloaded as patches from the Mozilla website."
Only six critical flaws, not eight.
Anyway, I couldn't find any information about those flaws. Could you?
Will they remove that stupid "feature" that doesn't allow you to empty a "file upload" box? Hate that so much.
Also, the option to turn off (or at least diminish) the AwesomeBar.
Yes, there are add-ons for both problems, but these shouldn't be problems. I should need add-ons to enhance an application, not "cripple" it.
+5 insightful ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I also see this, very often, and while I didn't file a formal bug, I brought it up in the developer's forum.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=999035
Unfortunately it was mostly ignored and some people have pointed out it could be related to running FF in a non-admin mode although anybody with an ounce of security on the brain isn't running their browser as root/admin.
And here I thought that the right-click issue was something that only I enjoyed. Wow.
I found that in Linux (specifically, Ubuntu,) you can get the Windows right-click functionality by holding down (not releasing) the button. The menu pops up, select function, and then release the button.
Yeah, it is kind of wonky to do it this way, but I've learned to use it pretty quickly so as to get around the random saveas-showlink-email-etc behavior. Note that this same method doesn't work in Windows, where you need to release the button before the menu pops up. *shrug*
This has nothing to do with mouse quality, btw. Unless this MX is an expensive AND POS mouse.
Oh, where to start?
First of all, Chrome's functionality stems from a multi-process architecture, not just multithreaded. Second, the Awesome Bar is just a small snippet of JavaScript and markup. Removing it would save only a few kilobytes of hard drive space, if that. Hardly bloat. Third, you can disable the Awesome Bar or limit its results with about:config, thereby removing any "bloat" it might inflict on CPU or memory usage.
If you don't want to use it, fine. Me, I go back and forth between the Firefox nightlies and the WebKit nightlies. I have no argument with playing favorites or using what works best for you, but if you're going to cite technical reasons, at least get those technical reasons correct. Otherwise, you just sound like yet another misanthropic teenager trolling Slashdot thinking they sound enlightened or insightful just because another misanthropic know-little teenager modded them up.
Memory leaks were horrible in Firefox 2, but they fixed those with Firefox 3 and I don't know of anyone who's had an issue since updating to the new version. Are you sure you're using Firefox 3?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The first one says, "General, we've designed a new gun! It's better than the ones before it, and best of all, it only misfires-- thus killing the gunner-- one out of every 100 shots!"
The second engineer says, "General, our new gun is even better! It only misfires-- thus killing the gunner-- one out of every {x} shots! Where {x} is a number we do not know, because it hasn't been tested in battle enough"
Honestly, now, which gun do you pick?
The devil you know? Or the devil you don't?
firefox hasn't been tested to the extreme microsoft has been in exposure to hackerdom, simply because it doesn't warrant as much attention, simply because it has a fraction of the market compared to ie
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Does this summary read like shameless propaganda to anyone else? I'm such a big Firefox fan I have been running bleeding edge nightlies of Tracemonkey for months, but this Slashdot story summary has left a bad taste in my mouth.
Think of all that's happening right now: Safari keeps gaining in popularity. Chrome was released not terribly long ago. The Gnome crowd is moving away from Gecko into the open arms of WebKit.
Yet this summary would lead any reader to believe that this was the greatest and most triumphant moment in Firefox's history!
Reading this even manages to make the fixing of eight "critical vulnerabilities" sound like such a great achievement that we should consider creating a new one for every one we excise, just so we have something more to celebrate about in the future!
I love Firefox, but damn! Shame on nandemoari. Shame on CmdrTaco. Shame on Slashdot!
This has nothing to do with mouse quality, btw. Unless this MX is an expensive AND POS mouse.
In my personal experience, this seems to be distribution-specific.
I experience the exact same problems in Ubuntu (and seems to be reversed by pressing a few times the crtl+alt+shift buttons - as if Ubuntu had lost track of the status of modifier keys), whereas I have no problems at all under openSUSE.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
For my part, all of my machines have way more RAM that they can possibly use (4GB = $25, average usage ~50% even with Vista SuperFetch). RAM is cheap, network access is expensive -- it makes sense to use as much caching as possible.
On the other hand, Linux is quite good at caching and buffering.
Under it, I prefer turning off the ram-caching and only use the on disk cache and rely on linux caching ability.
Also, Flash under Linux sucks. Since I have noscript running my firefox seems much more stable and a lot less memory hungry.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm still browsing with "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090305 Minefield/3.2a1pre"
So I guess it'll take at least a day for the decision to be reflected in the trunk build ID (who'd have thought! :P )
Whoever cleared this for the front page?
If a free software team announced "our current stable version is insecure, but if you install our test version, you'll be safe", there would be serious hell. If you have security holes in your current stable branch, you bloody well fix them immediately instead of asking users to download a beta version. (Well, unless you're Google, in which case the whole universe is in beta.)
Just to be sure this wasn't the case, I traced the source through this poorly researched blog entry on infopackets.com back to CNet, and lo and behold:
Nope, no mention of a beta. Yes, a beta of 3.1 was released at the same time as a stable 3.0.7, and yes, 3.1 has an advanced JS engine that will boost performance. I'll even wager that if the 3.0.6 bugs were also in the 3.1 branch, then this beta fixed them as well.
But no, users do not have to download a beta version to ensure security, and to mislead them otherwise is pretty irresponsible as there is already enough FUD going on about Mozilla.
Parent-guy, you should give your post better titles so people will not assume it's not just the millionth empty riff.
Someday we'll all be negroes
This is Slashdot, not Adobe's bug reporting system. Please fix your bookmarks. They won't fix the problem if you don't post it where they will read it.
But someone did post the bug report in Adobe's bug tracker. What's the next step?
By the way, Chrome doesn't do multi-threading. It has a multi-process architecture.
Same difference. Processes and threads can both preemptively multitask open pages. The big difference is that "threads" are more likely to use shared memory to pass information between tasks, while "processes" use a serialized byte stream.
a nightmare on linux platforms (don't know if it affects others, I'm exclusively a linux shop these days).
And you bid us welcome to your nightmare? LOL!
No thanx, Alice- I'll stick with Vista --> Win7
Ubuntu 8.10, current as of 23:59Hrs PST last night & Firefox 3.0.6 [Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009020911 Ubuntu/8.10 (intrepid) Firefox/3.0.6].
I tried right-clicking various elements of the page & the pop-open menu stays open until I click an entry in it, or click away elsewhere on the screen.
I couldn't MAKE it close prematurely, or pick the wrong entry.
I feel so deprived...
=} *errrrr*
So when are they going to fix the obnoxious shit where firefox jumps on top of all my other windows when it finishes rendering a page?
Seriously you guys, this was in firefox 1.x and fixed in 2.x Regressing over a timescale of years is kind of mindboggling.
-josh
As far as wanting to get rid of money, I'm spending work money, and I have to spend it all by the end of the funding contract period of performance. The real truth of it is I wanted systems that "just work" (and for my purposes these do), and I have the budget for it. Not everyone on Slashdot is poor.
Most computers these days come with a mouse. In the case of a Mac, it's a Mighty Mouse.
I do have one iMac, it's not used for much other than monitoring a security system and running Windows XP under VMWare Fusion to run a CD duplicator/printer. It works great and takes no more desk space than an equivalently sized LCD monitor. The other systems are Mac Pros and an old G5 Quad (with really cool sounding fans).
Apart from the flaky scroll ball and the backlight on my 30" Cinema display that wouldn't work on the first try on cold winter mornings (warranty took care of it) the Apple hardware has all been rock solid and worth the money.
Putting moderation advice in your
Firefox on GNU/Linux leaks memory like there's no tomorrow, something I've never noticed with it on Windows. By leaks I mean huge leaks, at some point Fx 3 gallops +300MB, especially if left overnight.
Konqueror by no means a lightweight browser, but at least in my experience it doesn't leak memory endlessly, memory consumption usually peaks at around 100MB.
Konqueror does have quirks and issues, the UI feels sluggish and at times stop responding for a couple of seconds, but I did notice improvements going from 4.0 to 4.1 to 4.2.
Site compatibility is a complain of mine, thankfully most sites I visit Konqueror has no problem with.
Konqueror 4.2 allows me to switch between KHTML and WebKit without restarting it. Currently, the version of WebKit included is a bit behind, but that should change with Qt 4.5, I think...
In short all browsers suck, Konqueror though uses less memory.
I can't wait for Google Chrome!
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Firefox 3 doesn't display JPEGs without massive banding effects on a 16bpp X display. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/249436 Firefox 2 handles them fine. It would be nice to see this bug fixed.
Specs are large and ambiguous, almost by their nature as documents to be written by humans. You can usually argue the nature or degree of your support in many ways, and browser makers have often done exactly this, even in the case of contradictory implementations. Test suites remove this ambiguity: either you pass a test or you do not, and collections of these tests can be scored in a clear and certain manner.
Make no mistake: the future of standards-compliance is not in specifications, but in the test suites based on them. The Acid tests, as existed and in terms of their successors, establish a platform that developers can reasonably depend on, and while this platform does not include the whole of the specifications, it is valuable because it is known and reliable in ways that the specs are not.
This is why the Mozilla team needs to get on the ball and start taking these tests seriously. This is real standards-compliance: not when you can say you've implemented parts X, Y, and Z of a spec, possibly based on creative interpretation, but when someone can put your browser to the test and see for themselves that stuff works.