If you read the guide you'll see that they have intentionally put some strange characters into the code, to test if the browsers igonre them according to the specs.
"What does open-source have to do with this? Opera, a tiny company with nowhere near the resources of Microsoft, who haven't released their browser as open-source, have done miles better than Microsoft."
"The reason for having this is to expose bugs in current implementations. Internet Explorer is the obvious retard, implementing about 50% of CSS 2.1, but that doesn't mean that the other browsers can just slack off at 95%. That's not what the W3C is about, it's not what WASP is about, and it's not what this acid test is about."
I agree, and truly hope that Acid2 will help bring all the browsers forward.
Yes, they've been talking for very long about those 250 MB, but so far, all I can see is ads for their 2GB Hotmail Plus for so-and-so many $$.
I suppose it fits in well with MS's vaporware strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
They made errors which the browsers should cope with if they follow the spec.
I would agree with that, but then again - I wrote and submitted the post ;-)
That's why they called it "Acid". Have a look at the first one and you'll see why: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS1/current/sec5 526c.htm
Cool. Could you send me a screenshot to naylor83@gmail.com? That'd be great. Maybe even two: one before resizing and one after.
"He never said anything about proprietary code."
And he didn't say he had said so either...
If you read the guide you'll see that they have intentionally put some strange characters into the code, to test if the browsers igonre them according to the specs.
"What does open-source have to do with this? Opera, a tiny company with nowhere near the resources of Microsoft, who haven't released their browser as open-source, have done miles better than Microsoft."
Agreed
No. More like "made to demonstrate which parts of CSS 2 are often broken in the current web browsers".
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
In a way I agree - I think implementing CSS2 to its full extent would be more than twice as good as implementing half of it.
At the same time I think implementing 80% is better than implementing 35%.
IE6 implement far less of the CSS2 spec than any other browser - that's a fact. Hence the "obviously".
Seriously now. If Firefox had done worse than IE6 in this test it would have made the front pages of every tech news site this side of Uranus.
Parent poster was right, that was anti-MS FUD. If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all."
On the contrary - it would have made the first page.
None, they used something like Gimp or Photoshop. I asked them.
"The reason for having this is to expose bugs in current implementations. Internet Explorer is the obvious retard, implementing about 50% of CSS 2.1, but that doesn't mean that the other browsers can just slack off at 95%. That's not what the W3C is about, it's not what WASP is about, and it's not what this acid test is about."
I agree, and truly hope that Acid2 will help bring all the browsers forward.
Which part of "obviously" is Fear, Uncertainity or Doubt? It's common knowledge that IE6 is far behind in implementing the W3C web standards.
Too slow.
They wouldn't have much more trouble than they will have trying to upgrade to longhorn.
Hey guys: I think he is thinking of trademarks. Maybe. Anyone?
Me tinks teh-same.
Yes, they've been talking for very long about those 250 MB, but so far, all I can see is ads for their 2GB Hotmail Plus for so-and-so many $$. I suppose it fits in well with MS's vaporware strategy.
Being a convicted monopoly doesn't make everything they do illegal.
Well, MS is always MS, and Google is always Good. Wrong?
Well, this is basically what Google is already doing, not?
How true.
Yes, I believe NetCaptor was first with tabs.