Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Clashing Scores In the HTML5 Compatibility Test Wars

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the jake-the-explainer-steps-in-early dept.

Firefox 203

Andreas(R) writes "Microsoft has published a set of HTML5 tests comparing Internet Explorer 9 to other web browsers. In Microsoft's own tests, IE9 performs 100% on all tests. However, the Internet Explorer 9 HTML5 Canvas Campaign has published results that show that Internet Explorer gets 0% on all their tests." The results reported here are selected with tongue in cheek: "Therefore, we'll also present shameless results from tests which have been carefully selected to give the results that the PR department has demanded."

cancel ×

203 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IE has 100% compatability... (5, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452276)

...with MS HTML# 5.0

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452576)

Actually, IE9 is only 72% compatible with the HTML# standard.

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (3, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452622)

Wouldn't this be a great opportunity for one of the internet watchdogs to make a suit against MS here? HTML5 hasn't been agreed to yet, here is an advertisement saying that IE9 is 100% compliant.

That's obvious false advertising isn't it?

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452690)

HTML5 hasn't been agreed to yet, here is an advertisement saying that IE9 is 100% compliant.

The advertisement doesn't claim anything about compliance with anything. It claims that IE9 passes 100% of the tests labelled "HTML5" that Microsoft has constructed.

It doesn't claim that those tests either represent the whole of the HTML5 spec or any draft thereof, or even that they test behavior required by the spec or any draft thereof, or even -- except by implication -- that passing them indicates behavior that is acceptable under some draft of the HTML5 spec.

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (3, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452756)

It doesn't claim that those tests either represent the whole of the HTML5 spec or any draft thereof, or even that they test behavior required by the spec or any draft thereof, or even -- except by implication -- that passing them indicates behavior that is acceptable under some draft of the HTML5 spec.

In Australia (where I am from) an advertisement needs to either have a disclaimer (normally small text at the bottom) if there is vagueness about what it is saying, or what the advertisement says needs to be taken at face value - meaning "what it implies".

Surely the US would have that too?

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (2, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452896)

Is this an ad? What are they selling?

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452944)

Bad software.

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (2, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453766)

Marketing department has issued a correction to your statement.

"Bad ass software."

Sign me up!

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (5, Funny)

Jawcracker Fuzz (1773468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453740)

Browser enlargment pills?

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453830)

Windows 7...

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453748)

It doesn't claim that those tests either represent the whole of the HTML5 spec or any draft thereof, or even that they test behavior required by the spec or any draft thereof

They're all drafts. There is NO HTML 5.0 spec. Heck the w3c even say

Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways.

But that wording is more of a dig from goggle who appear to be highjacking it to get more of the stuff they need for Wave than anything else.

Saying HTML5.0 is a spec is saying you're just a little bit pregnant. Hell the canvas draft changed again and was republished YESTERDAY [whatwg.org]

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452780)

Or false reading, the microsoft page in question says:

This website contains several collections of new test pages that we developed in conjunction with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) working groups. These 192 test pages have been updated based on feedback and now include some new HTML5 test pages.

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (5, Funny)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452650)

And the award for Best Internet Explorer goes to... Internet Explorer 9!

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (1)

rebussohal (1785362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452724)

I think you mean the award for best Internet Explorer 9 as if stacked up against the other Internet Explorers it would not win.

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452950)

if stacked up against the other Internet Explorers it would not win.

Why not?

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (1)

TheGothicGuardian (1138155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32454120)

Because there are more of them than there are of IE9. It's like sending a baby to fight a group of grouchy old men; they may all stink, but the old men can't be beat.

Re:IE has 100% compatability... (1)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453582)

I seem to recall, in the days before Firefox, that Internet Explorer 4 (or was it 5? It's been a while) was actually one of the least bad browsers in common usage. If we're comparing browser to browser in an "adjusted for spec inflation" sense, IE9 actually would probably come in somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Build Your Own Test (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452288)

First off if this is a technical discussion, we should probably be talking about layout engines -- not browsers. Secondly their HTML5 capabilities are well documented [wikipedia.org] . You can come up with whatever perventage you want from those charts as some things (Video) might be deal breakers compared to others (MathML).

Re:Build Your Own Test (5, Insightful)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452398)

Indeed. However, Microsoft has a poor record of interoperability which only improved recently. So it needs to regain trust. The way to regain trust is to actually improve interoperability and standard conformance, no mere marketing and public affairs campaign. Real credibility stems from real achievements. I am sure Microsoft is able to become an interoperability leader.

Re:Build Your Own Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452462)

Looking forward to 2060 already, huh?

Re:Build Your Own Test (5, Funny)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452558)

I am sure Microsoft is able to become an inoperability leader.

Fixed that for ya!.
Yeah it's old, but it's good.

Re:Build Your Own Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453322)

Yes, they need to work to regain trust, so they cqn screw everybody over in a year or two.

Anybody who trusts Microsoft deserves what they get.

Re:Build Your Own Test (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453374)

what have they exactly improved with interop? I've never seen them any different than normal, aka zero interop unless mandated by courts.

Re:Build Your Own Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32454130)

I swear nerds are some of the dumbest specimens of human beings on earth. You sound like a battered wife that keeps going back to her husband everytime he says "I'm sorry" just to have the same thing happen again a week later.

How can MS possibly regain somebodies trust after the winter of IE6/activex? We are finally working our way out from under their thumbs and you people want to jump right back into their arms? People accuse apple and linux people of being blind zealots but they don't have shit on the typical MS fan.

Here's a thought... USE ANOTHER BROWSER. There are better ones out there despite MS' marketing bs for IE9. Chrome is faster, firefox has more extensions, Opera has more built-in features. Seriously, I don't get it unless you just have an undying love for MS. In which case, you don't need another browser, you need therapy.

Re:Build Your Own Test (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452428)

First off if this is a technical discussion, we should probably be talking about layout engines -- not browsers.

Meh. If I code a website, I want to know which browsers can show it correctly and which can't. I don't care about whatever layout engines the browsers use, that's pretty irrelevant for me. (Okay: I don't really care even about the browsers, I care about users. Certain demographics tend to use certain browsers, etc... But as most of the statistics about the subject are about browser shares, not layout engine shares, I see no reason to switch to talking about the layout engines there.) If I want to choose a new web browser for my personal use, I care about how well it can display sites, I don't care about the layout engine underneath it.

The only people for which the actual layout engines are relevant are browser developers. For everyone else, that is irrelevant.

Re:Build Your Own Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452676)

The layout engine pool narrows what you have to compare. If something works fine in browser X with engine Y then you can assume that browsers X2 and X3 that also use engine Y will also work just fine.

Re:Build Your Own Test (2, Interesting)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453144)

You can assume they will have a high likelyhood of working fine but just because two browsers use gecko or webkit doesn't mean the version of browsers you have promised to support are using the same version of it. And afaict at least with webkit based browsers some of them have done things like swapping out the JS engine which has the potential to break stuff.

The IE engine is an unusual case as afaict the version of it used depends on the version of IE installed rather than the version of the "browser" the user is using.

Re:Build Your Own Test (2, Funny)

Some.Net(Guy) (1733146) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452480)

You can come up with whatever perventage you want from those charts as some things (Video) might be deal breakers compared to others (MathML).

i avoid high schools to keep my perventage low.

Re:Build Your Own Test (3, Funny)

DFJA (680282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452536)

I never deal in perventages, it just seems...well, a bit percerted.

Re:Build Your Own Test (3, Informative)

matthewv789 (1803086) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453394)

Here is a better listing of specific capabilities for different browser versions: http://caniuse.com/ [caniuse.com] It's still unclear how competitive IE9 will be at the time it comes out, but it will clearly be a huge leap forward from IE8. (The big problem will be getting all the existing IE6, 7, and 8 users to migrate to IE9 or other modern browsers.)

Do we have any *real* test? (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452322)

Yeah that's certainly entertaining and all but...do we have any real tests with real results?
And by "real" I mean tests that includes all HTML5 specifications...

Re:Do we have any *real* test? (5, Insightful)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452532)

No, at least not before we have a real HTML5 spec.

Re:Do we have any *real* test? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452636)

OK, can we have a test that includes all specifications of the HTML5 Working Draft?

Re:Do we have any *real* test? (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452734)

I think someone is busy working on ACID4 at this very moment.

But a test of all specifications of the HTML5 Working Draft is not something easy. Have we ever had a test of all specifications of even CSS 2.1?

Re:Do we have any *real* test? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453632)

While you are sitting back and waiting for someone else to write these comprehensive test suites the only entity really taking the W3C Test Suite projects seriously at all is Microsoft. They've submitted thousands of test cases for CSS2.1 and have been working to submit hundreds of tests for CSS3.0 and HTML5. These are the very tests that are being disparaged here. It can be claimed that Microsoft is stacking these tests intentionally, except that these tests are publically available for comment and scrutiny. The Test Suite projects are open for submissions by others as well so Google and Mozilla and anyone else is free to submit tests of behaviors that IE9 fails and that their browser passes. The more comprehensive these test case projects are the more everyone benefits by having a real target to implement.

ACID is not an authority. They cherry pick a relative handful of problematic yet pointless tests and construct something cute. ACID3 tests about a hundred different things from a mix of technologies. The W3C Test Suite for CSS2.1 currently has nearly 8,000 tests. Which do you think is more comprehensive?

Re:Do we have any *real* test? (4, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453646)

Well, that's the problem with HTML. The W3C doesn't create an acceptance test, so there's really no objective way to measure how compliant a particular browser truly is. People love to use the ACID tests, but ACID tests only a small portion of the relevant standards. And the portions tested aren't even the major, important parts; ACID tests for very obscure, esoteric parts of the standards.

On one hand, you can look at the ACID tests and say 'well, at least it's an indication of interest in conforming to the standard.' But is that true either? ACID tests have become another marketing point: 'my browser got to 100% compliance before your browser.' Aiming for 100% on the ACID tests doesn't necessarily indicate a desire to be highly compliant, it indicates a desire to score 100% on the ACID tests.

You could perhaps consider the instantaneous behavior of the tests: how compliant various browsers are upon release of the new test. There's a certain logic to that; developers which are truly interested in compliance, and not just marketing, will do well in a previously unseen test. But ACID tests aren't developed in isolation either. They're politically justified, an effort to encourage compliance, and as such they test for specific behaviors which major browsers were getting wrong (i.e., a browser could be 99.9% compliant, and ACID would target the 0.1% they get wrong).

So to answer your question: No. There's no comprehensive compliance/acceptance test for any of W3C's standards, so don't expect one either. The only evidence of compliance is anecdotal, and the plural of anecdote is not data. Microsoft's test results are completely unsurprising and generally meaningless for anybody familiar with normal development practices, and W3C standards, but it's a nice indication that they're aiming for at least some level of standards-compliance in IE9.

New MS, Same as the old... (4, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452344)

When you can't beat em, change the rules.

Re:New MS, Same as the old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452400)

When you can't beat em, change the rules.

Wait, Microsoft is Captain Kirk now?

Re:New MS, Same as the old... (4, Funny)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453022)

Wait, Microsoft is Captain Kirk now?

Bald.. check.
Fat.. check.
Arrogant.. check.

Seems so..

Re:New MS, Same as the old... (5, Funny)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32454102)

So Kirk's jilted speech - that's just him swapping out to disk?

Re:New MS, Same as the old... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32454150)

Hold up there buddy....

It seems as if you were comparing a fat, nasty, greasy, fat, stank, bloated, cheesy-backed, twelve-sandwich-eating bastard to Captain Kirk right now.

Granted.... Captain Kirk may have put on a few pounds, got himself a damned fined toupee, and be a little bit arrogant.. but the man was Captain James T. Kirk. He was hitting intergalatic strange out in the alpha quadrant when you was just an itch in your daddy's pants. I would say a little respect is in order.

I am also pretty sure Captain Kirk once made 4 touchdowns in a single game of high school football back in the day too.

Comparing that man to Microsoft? If it was really that bad son we would all be speaking Klingon right now.

Re:New MS, Same as the old... (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452540)

Hell, why do that. Just put out a press release saying you won and the other side is lying.

Re:New MS, Same as the old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453568)

You mean like the Kobe Oshi Maru scenario?

Here's how to solve the impasse (5, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452348)

Well, let knowledgeable slashdotters point us novices to a set of a "standard" HTML5 test site to which we can run and establish the fact.

Ohh wait, I forgot that there is yet to be any agreement on the HTML5 standard itself! This is why I think Apple is just bluffing with their campaign against Flash. It also demonstrates the weaknesses we all have to work around.

Re:Here's how to solve the impasse (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452504)

There is plenty of agreement in the html5 draft, lots of it is not controversial.

There certainly is not complete agreement.

Re:Here's how to solve the impasse (1, Informative)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452628)

Hi. Have you heard of this thing called "Google". It's pretty amazing really.

http://html5test.com/ [html5test.com]

Re:Here's how to solve the impasse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453142)

Do you know how to read. html5test.com has a huge image at the bottom of the page saying "Updated version coming soon". That and the disclaimer above it make it sound like a rock solid standard that they are testing.

Re:Here's how to solve the impasse (2, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453244)

Note that site tests things that aren't actally required by the current drafts of the spec. e.g. support for particular audio/video codecs.

Re:Here's how to solve the impasse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453348)

This is all true and i guess why the "gold standard" is still set at IE6 with ugly "plugins".

Everyone knows we can do better easily, they've known that for years but terrible HTML combined with the "browser wars" completely stagnated everything.

Now we're back to 1998 after everyone realizes the interwebs is starting to feel like the 80's version of TV but most importantly doesn't work on everything they want it to (ipads, iphones, blackberry's, playstations, toasters, tvs, etc. etc.)

Standards are very important but we all know how much work get's done when it's ran by a community.

Clearly... (2, Insightful)

JansenVT (1235638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452352)

Clearly, the independent, third-party tests are flawed. Microsoft would never create a biased benchmarking test to promote their own product.

Seriously though? The only people that understand what HTML5 is and what these results actually mean are going to understand that it is complete nonsense.

Re:Clearly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452496)

Yes, but as with most graphs, people who understand what the data "presented" actually means aren't the target audience. While, in theory, they are a tool used by engineers, scientists, and the like for better communicating complex datasets, they're in practice most commonly deployed by marketing, where data are nothing and vague impressions are everything.

Everyone else hears "IE9 is 100% buzzword compliant! The other browsers failed a bunch of tests, so they must suck." It doesn't _matter_ that they have no clue what relevance various HTML5 stuff has to them and their browser usage, it's enough that they now "know" that IE is better than everyone else. After all, why would you use the worse option?

No shipping IE results (4, Insightful)

ottffssent (18387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452390)

TFA: "The first table is a summary of the test results with the May 2010 IE Platform Preview and each of the major shipping browsers running on Windows."

So...IE8 isn't a "major shipping browser" that runs on Windows?

If IE8 scores so terribly that Microsoft is embarrassed to post its scores, that's fine, but it would be less dishonest and more informative then to include recent betas of their competitors' browsers in addition to the latest shipping version.

Microsoft fakes test results to favor themselves! (1, Funny)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452408)

In other news, something surprising happened.

Coming up next: are angry hobos stalking your Facebook account? What you don't know might eat you. Film at 11.

Sex analogy (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452424)

That's like saying slashdotters are 100% successful sexually.

If the tests that include the opposite sex are excluded.

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452526)

Fuck that. Car analogy.

It's like testing several cars with similar performance on a very long, winding racetrack covered with obstacles and comparing their lap times to that of another car that drives around a very short and straight loop.

It's easy to say who gets first place when you get to choose the conditions of winning. Doesn't matter, though, the point here isn't to make Internet Explorer more popular, it's to make Microsoft look like they're competing fairly and remaining relevant.

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (2, Funny)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452562)

Where's Bad Analogy Guy when you need him?

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453102)

No, where's Pizza Analogy Guy when you need him?

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453878)

Which browser does the best pizza graph?
Which does the best Paul Klee faces?
Which cuts up the image best for different resolutions, or multiple monitors?
Which one requires yellow cheese for best results?

--

Andrew Romanoff for Czar.

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453904)

On what day do you offer the authentic Neapolitan pizza chef school?

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453116)

His Analogy would hit that bullseye, then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453380)

His Analogy would hit that bullseye, then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Game, set and match.

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453286)

Where's Bad Analogy Guy when you need him?

Well, Bad Analogy Guy is kind of like a car. And the radio only gets two stations on AM, but there's an eight track with a copy of "Journey's Greatest Hits" stuck in it. If you look at it that way then this discussion is something like an eight hour drive from Tulsa, OK to one of the Portlands. I can't remember which one, but it's eight hours away by car. Now the car has wood grain paneling on the right side and some kind spray-on granite countertop on the left, so the driver can lean out of the window and chop tomatoes as long as the passenger leans over to take the wheel.

The rest of us are the two pedigreed schnoodles sitting in the back seat, trying to eat bacon and egg sandwiches.

Does that answer your question?

Re:Sex analogy BLAH WHATEVER (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453458)

It's all so clear now... my days of nihilism are finally over...

Aha, success! (3, Funny)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452658)

That's like saying slashdotters are 100% successful sexually.

If the tests that include the opposite sex are excluded.

Fuck that.

We have a winner! :D

Cheers,

Re:Sex analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452574)

Were you running those tests with System.Web.Hand 3.5.0.0 enabled?

Re:Sex analogy (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452858)

Were you running those tests with System.Web.Hand 3.5.0.0 enabled?

Using hand-crafted code.

Fire in the fox (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452430)

On linux type cat /usr/bin/firefox > /dev/mem as root to debug firefox so it can be stripped of its memory leaks.

It's also worth mentioning... (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452452)

...that they benchmarked IE trunk against OLD versions of other browsers. They didn't even use Chrome 5.0!

In some places it's a significant difference. [withinwindows.com]

I also did some benchmarks of my own on non-Microsoft controlled sites. See the first comment on that page for results. Suffice it to say IE9 has improved since IE8 but still has a ways to go.

Re:It's also worth mentioning... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452814)

...that they benchmarked IE trunk against OLD versions of other browsers. They didn't even use Chrome 5.0!

Could happen to anyone!

Yesterday I read on Slashdot that Chrome 2.0 was just released.

Re:It's also worth mentioning... (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452996)

I think the point of the article is that no one implements all HTML standards perfectly. Chrome is an immature browser based on one of the newer rendering engines, so we expect it to mature rapidly, but hardly can expect it to match it's cousin Safari in most areas, thous we expect it would in a short time.

The ie test is bullshit (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452564)

Yeah we all knew that already but when I went to the site a few days ago, when hackernews showed it, it claimed chrome was failing tests where you could see with your own eyes it was succeeding. Fuck Microsoft and their bashing other browsers when theres still falls flat on all other tests /rant

Re:The ie test is bullshit (1)

tyrax (907001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452962)

"it claimed chrome was failing tests where you could see with your own eyes it was succeeding" Link to it or it didn't happen

Re:The ie test is bullshit (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453952)

This was one http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/html5/selection_harness.htm?url=selectionStartEnd [microsoft.com]
fails on the iPhone but it worked in chrome Wednesday

Re:The ie test is bullshit (1)

UoNTidal (442382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32454032)

I tried that test in the current Chrome dev build (6.0.422.0 dev) on my Vista box at work and it failed.

test results are largely irrelevant anyway (0, Troll)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452600)

Like IE8, IE7 and IE6 before them, windows users will be forced to upgrade to 9 sooner or later anyway. You can bet it is likely part of Windows 7 SP1 or SP2.

Re:test results are largely irrelevant anyway (4, Informative)

Ralish (775196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452852)

Wait, what? No Windows Service Pack has ever forced an update of Internet Explorer; maybe NT 4.0 did as I can't remember that far back, but definitely nothing since Windows 2000 onwards. Windows XP SP3 will install fine with IE 6.0 (XP bundled version). They'd be breaking their own support policy by even doing so, as Microsoft commits to supporting the version of IE that is shipped with every Windows version for the lifetime of support for that OS release. Seriously, where do you trolls get your garbage? You're not picking exceptions, you're claiming shit that has never happened.

Re:test results are largely irrelevant anyway (2, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452914)

As another user pointed out, IE upgrades are not forced. They are perhaps put into the "recommended" (but I think they are in "optional," now I don't remember) updates, but you are not forced to upgrade. I can run XP SP3 and click "No" when it asks if I want IE8, and nothing bad has happened.

Re:test results are largely irrelevant anyway (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452924)

When has Microsoft ever forced someone to upgrade their browser?

Re:test results are largely irrelevant anyway (2, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453410)

Like IE8, IE7 and IE6 before them, windows users will be forced to upgrade to 9 sooner or later anyway.

Yeah, what the hell? Most Windows users I deal with who aren't running Firefox, are running IE6 on XP.

HTML5TEST (2, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452644)

http://html5test.com/ [html5test.com]

things like this will have to do until we see something like ACID support HTML5.

Re:HTML5TEST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32454060)

Thanks.

My favorite part of the "Canvas Campaign"... (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452702)

Discussion of test results

Based on the tests that we have performed, it is very clear that there is a very big difference between the best and worst browsers. Therefore we can only conclude that the results are valid and true.

Now if that isn't a rigorous application of the scientific method I don't know what is!

Re:My favorite part of the "Canvas Campaign"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32452818)

It's unclear from your post whether you realize this, but the text you quote is a tongue-in-cheek response to the absolute joke that is the IE9 Testing Center.

Huff, Huff and gufaw! (3, Insightful)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452790)

Microsoft is 100% Microsoft compatible (restrictions and exclusions apply).

Re:Huff, Huff and gufaw! (1)

xs650 (741277) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453034)

Microsoft is 100% Microsoft compatible (restrictions and exclusions apply).

Many restrictions and exclusions, such as using the same version.

Microsoft's tests seem legit (-1, Troll)

tyrax (907001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32452904)

Did any of you 'holier than thou' slashdotters actually evaluate the tests that Microsoft published before ripping them apart? They seem legit so far, and they are pointing out issues that SHOULD be fixed in the other browsers as well.

Re:Microsoft's tests seem legit (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453152)

I'm not sure about the part about the tests seeming legit, but I do think you make a good point that the tests are at least legit enough to cast light on the shortcomings of the other browsers. But mainly, I want to express my appreciation that you didn't just post another version of the standard (and boring and too easy) Slashdot response. So thank you for actually trying to focus this discussion on the issues. I hope you're not flamed or just ignored, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Microsoft's tests seem legit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453932)

Fagnuts.

Re:Microsoft's tests seem legit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453204)

Did any of you 'holier than thou' slashdotters actually evaluate the tests that Microsoft published before ripping them apart? They seem legit so far, and they are pointing out issues that SHOULD be fixed in the other browsers as well.

If so, then good for them. It would be a dramatic change in behavior, given the complete disregard for standards in previous versions of IE.

There is an obvious methodology problem with this test that makes its result questionable: They are testing an unreleased product (IE9) against the shipping version of other browsers. That is like bragging that a PC that will ship in nine months is faster than one that has been on sale for a year. Other browsers are actively working on the same issues, and will be better by the time any real users get IE9. Firefox and Chrome are open source, and provide bleeding edge builds that they could have tested. They chose not to test the shipping version of their own browser.

Being skeptical that the company with the worst track record in standards compliance has completely changed based on a benchmark of their own choosing, comparing an alpha product against stable versions of competing products, is not "holier than thou". It is common sense.

wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453048)

this was pointless.

The Difference (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453082)

Here's a difference that everyone should note. When the later Acid tests were formulated they were written by Webkit and Gecko developers and were specifically biased against those engines. If one of the two did not fail, it didn't go in. That way it motivates them to improve. When MS writes a test suite it's biased in favor of their engine, so they can claim to be "ahead" and have no motivation to improve. It's an excellent example of who values technical excellence and who values marketing.

Re:The Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453170)

Testing to destructive failure is quite often more informative then just happy go lucky "sure it works under happy-go-lucky conditions as opposed to really horrendous messy ones".

Re:The Difference (4, Insightful)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453174)

Sounds to me more like all parties are doing test driven development.

I think the difference here is that the Acid tests were published before anybody went and got 100% of them. But I'd bet that Microsoft wrote these tests back when IE9 didn't pass them, then made IE9 pass them, THEN released the tests.

Re:The Difference (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453234)

I think the difference here is that the Acid tests were published before anybody went and got 100% of them. But I'd bet that Microsoft wrote these tests back when IE9 didn't pass them, then made IE9 pass them, THEN released the tests.

Maybe, but there's no way to know that and there's no pressure on them to fix what's still broken because they haven't released a list of what's broken and what it is their goal to fix. So whether MS wrote tests they knew they'd pass or wrote tests then fixed them before publishing them, either way they're not in the same boat and not focused on technical excellence so much as marketing.

Re:The Difference (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453264)

At best this demonstrates misrepresentation. MS is like a student who says that they passed did better in Math than their peers. They even have a handy chart. What MS doesn't tell you is that they only tested specific skills like quadratic equations. What missing from this is that Chrome/Opera/Firefox/Safari took the whole Math test from algebra/geometry/trig/calculus/etc while MS only attempted the handful of questions it knew it solve.

MS's meaningless comparisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32453184)

I am adequately shocked and awed by how Microsoft's own testing shows that IE9 will be superior to any other major browser out today! ... except that IE9 isn't out today, and won't be for months.

Either tell me how well IE8 handles those same tests in comparison to Firefox 3.6, or give me a comparison of IE9 to Firefox 4. Otherwise, it's just fluff.

Re:MS's meaningless comparisons (1)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453688)

agreeded like whats with dev build of IE and an old build of Chrome?

I took the time to read the source of the tests. (5, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453536)

The reason why most tests failed with browsers other than IE:

1st) Since HTML5 is still in a very early state, many browsers (AKA Webkit, Gecko, Presto) used prefixes for most tags and CSS properties. Example: round borders is -moz-border-radius in gecko, and -webkit-border-radius in Chrome. Some latest versions have taken some out of beta and also read border-radius, but most still don't. IE obviously uses border-radius, and that's why other's don't work.
2nd) The JS is tricky at best. Go and check it out. Lots of lines of code to perform a simple task, and those lines are carefully selected to fail in other browsers. I downloaded the tests, and they work on ALL browsers (I tested Chrome, Firefox and Opera, all on GNU/Linux, all on their latest version). That JS was crafted to fail on all browsers and work only on IE
3rd) I took the time to run the source of many of their scripts through the W3C validator. Most scripts have several warnings, some errors, etc. They DO NOT VALIDATE.
4th) The tests aren't really HTML5. Only the HTML5 tests are actual HTML5, the others are XHTML 1.0 strict ... except they are not, because they use HTML5 styles and tags, and they do not validate. Validator says: The document located at was tentatively checked as XHTML 1.0 Strict. This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML, HTML5 and/or XML Parser(s). In other words, the document would validate as XHTML 1.0 Strict if you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.

It's microsoft ... never forget about that. This is business as usual.

Re:I took the time to read the source of the tests (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453560)

Sorry to reply to myself, but I forgot a few things:

1st: The actual ietestcenter fails validation with 12 errors and 6 warnings: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0 [w3.org]

Including some serious ones, like no Character encoding specified.

None of the tests specify a character encoding either.

Does it really matter? (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32453858)

There was a time when tabbed browsing was a new idea. If I remember correctly, IE was the last browser to get on board with it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that IE is the last browser to get on board with just about everything. Eventually, though, IE does come on board with everyone else (it may take years, but hey - possessing the lion's share of the market share has its advantages). I don't see any reason to believe that this will be any different with HTML5. And then (as now) the so-called 'Browser Wars' will boil down to a simple matter of personal preference.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>