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!

W3C Says IE9 Is Currently the Most HTML5 Compatible Browser

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the complain-about-the-tests-here dept.

Internet Explorer 382

GIL_Dude writes "The W3C posted results for their latest HTML5 compatibility tests and have found that, so far, IE 9 has the best overall results. 'The tests cover seven aspects of the spec: "attributes," "audio," "video," "canvas," "getElementsByClassName," "foreigncontent," and "xhtml5." The tests do not yet cover web workers, the file API, local storage, or other aspects of the spec. Not do they cover CSS or other standards that have nothing to do with HTML5 but are somehow lumped under HTML5 by the likes of Apple, Google, and Microsoft.'"

cancel ×

382 comments

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

Posting from IE8... (5, Interesting)

anss123 (985305) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104530)

Does slashdot work any better in IE9?

Re:Posting from IE8... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104540)

Slashdot works differently horrible in all browsers.

Re:Posting from IE8... (5, Funny)

Byzantine (85549) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104550)

Consistency is all I ask

Re:Posting from IE8... (5, Funny)

Saishuuheiki (1657565) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104888)

Will consistency in inconsistency suffice?

Or consistently inconsistent

Re:Posting from IE8... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104864)

Slashdot works differently horrible in all browsers.

Or doesn't work properly if you have JS disabled since they removed or disabled the old comment controls. In a similar vein, the W3C test results are presented via some javascript crud. Assuming that is that the visitor has it enabled.

Graceful degradation -- forget it. The new way to read text is via some Rube Goldberg mechanism where the browser has a JIT VM to execute script (which is usually inline and exceeds the size of text content requested) to make multiple HTTP requests. Quite moronic!

Re:Posting from IE8... (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104952)

Or doesn't work properly if you have JS disabled since they removed or disabled the old comment controls. In a similar vein, the W3C test results are presented via some javascript crud. Assuming that is that the visitor has it enabled.

A lot of website functionality is built with JavaScript - that's just a fact of life. You don't have to enable it, but you really can't complain when websites don't cater to the small minority of users who either disable or block all scripts. We're trying to get sites not to support the dying number of IE6 users, and I'd be willing to bet the % of users not using JS is even lower than IE6 users. If all sites were simply written in HTML there would be a lot less 'web' out there.

Re:Posting from IE8... (1, Insightful)

MichaelKristopeit121 (1933108) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104964)

the morons are the graphic designers that can't comprehend procedural logic, and the developers that won't be burdened by design implementation.

Re:Posting from IE8... (5, Funny)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104544)

No, I'm still seeing the same stupid comments

Re:Posting from IE8... (2, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104660)

Ask the other poster about his "brightness" knob.

Re:Posting from IE8... (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104546)

There's a "brightness" knob on my TV, but that never seems to work either.

--
BMO

Not suprising (5, Funny)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104554)

For all the flak IE gets, it's actually a great browser. We all know Microsoft make great products and often take the lead when forced to, and now is no different.

It is also the most secure browser by far, what with its inherent use of MAC, and full DEP and ALSR support. Strange, but true.

Re:Not suprising (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104604)

No kidding - place I work has to block Chrome, Safari, and Firefox at the firewall since all three have actively exploited zero-day exploits.

But not IE8. It's secure.

And, yes, they also block all versions of IE prior to 8, because those also have actively exploited holes in them, but if there's one thing Microsoft did right in Vista, it's securing IE. Too bad no other browser maker takes advantages of the OS features used to do that.

Re:Not suprising (4, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104746)

No other browser is limited to Windows.

Re:Not suprising (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104906)

Limited to Windows? Limited to Linux would be a huge problem, limited to Mac would be a big one, but "Limited" to Windows doesn't matter because you're going to be running Windows anyway.

Re:Not suprising (0, Troll)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104974)

I was saying that no other browser is limited to Windows, so it's kind of normal that no other browsers tries to hook deeply into the OS functions as IE does.

And FYI, not everyone uses Windows. The only time I "use" Windows is to test websites in IE6 and IE7, and Windows XP is trapped in a virtual computer.

Re:Not suprising (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105096)

Unless, of course, you have people that are running Mac's and IRIX boxes.

Re:Not suprising (4, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105112)

Well, how about this: Limited to Windows 7 / Vista. That's a much bigger problem for the 50% of us who use Windows XP.

Re:Not suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104836)

WTF? Chrome has all the IE8 security features the OP mentioned: DEP, ASLR, and quasi-MAC (or process integrity). I can't remember the last active IE8 or Chrome exploit which didn't target browser plugins.

Anyways, it's not as if DEP, ASLR, or MAC is unique to Windows. Firefox simply fails to use them. That is, except for SELinux, whose rules are tacked on by 3rd party, not Mozilla.

Re:Not suprising (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105062)

Chrome does not have full ASLR, several of it's libraries do not have support making it useless. Can you show how it uses Windows Integrity Levels?

I never said DEP, ASLR or MAC are unique to Windows, but IE is the only browser making full use of these basic technologies.

Re:Not suprising (2, Funny)

mugurel (1424497) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105020)

No kidding - place I work has to block Chrome, Safari, and Firefox at the firewall since all three have actively exploited zero-day exploits.

But not IE8. It's secure.

and just in case it's not, there's always lynx for windows ;-)

Re:Not suprising (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104622)

IE 9 is currently the most HTML5 compatible browser - but are they only testing the new HTML5 features? How does it do on the HTML4 code that is currently 99% of all the code on the internet?

Re:Not suprising (3, Informative)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104748)

Not only that, but I think at least one of the features they're testing is a former IE-ism that's been standardised, and the other browsers have prioritized HTML5 features like local storage that aren't tested here at all.

Re:Not suprising (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104908)

Ie8 implemented Localstorage but not SQL Storage.

Re:Not suprising (2, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104670)

For all the flak IE gets, it's actually a great browser..

I don't mind IE at all, and use FF daily too. However I much prefer the text rendering of Safari on both PC and Mac

Re:Not suprising (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104710)

I thought FF and Safari used the same text rendering, on Snow Leopard at least?

Re:Not suprising (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104760)

The text in Firefox always end up like half a point too big compared to Safari, Chrome and Opera.

Re:Not suprising (3, Informative)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104882)

That's probably because Firefox supports fractional font sizes: 12.1px, 12.3px, 12.5px...
 
Every other lunkheaded browser rounds to the nearest whole pixel value. If the site developers use relative font sizes (ems, percents) and don't do precise math, the site ends up with a declared pixel size between values...and only Firefox delivers the declared size.
 
As a CSS guy, this means I find other browsers infuriating. Now that we have Webfonts I want to render ever piece of text with fonts instead of graphics...but getting a banner to just the right size is often impossible without a fractional font size. As a normal user, it means Firefox more often than not looks "wrong," because it's far enough ahead of the curve to be out front alone.

Re:Not suprising (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104926)

So what you're saying is that I'm not crazy for doing things like declaring 1.15em so they all end up the same size in all browsers?

Re:Not suprising (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104786)

I thought FF and Safari used the same text rendering, on Snow Leopard at least?

Yeah I think you are right (I have them open side-by-side) but I know that MS takes a different approach to rendering than Apple, and I prefer the Apple way

Re:Not suprising (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104824)

Apple tries to render the font as precisely as possible.
Microsoft tries to hammer the font into sub-pixels as much as possible. You end up with deformed fonts and edges that are way too sharp.

Re:Not suprising (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104844)

Apple tries to render the font as precisely as possible. Microsoft tries to hammer the font into sub-pixels as much as possible. You end up with deformed fonts and edges that are way too sharp.

I have read the arguments for both and in someways the MS one does make sense - still I prefer the look of Safari

Re:Not suprising (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105026)

It makes sense if all you look at is the pixels themselves, just like it would make sense for the USPS to crush all packages into four inch cubes so they can be shipped more easily. ;)

Re:Not suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104874)

WHAAA! WHAAA! WHAAA!

you freaking cry baby!

Re:Not suprising (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104860)

On Snow Leopard, yes. FireFox uses the platform's native text rendering engine. Safari uses Apple's one wherever it runs. This means that you get Apple's sub-pixel AA instead of Microsoft's ClearType on Windows.

You also get some slightly different glyph positioning. Microsoft tweaks glyph positions by a fraction of a pixel to make them line up more closely with pixel boundaries. This makes individual characters clearer, but means that the spacing between characters looks a bit messed up. Apple renders glyphs exactly where they should be, which means that they often overlap pixel boundaries and need a lot of antialiasing.

If you're used to Microsoft's rendering, Apple's text will look slightly blurry. If you're used to Apple's rendering, Microsoft's will look weirdly spaced.

Re:Not suprising (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104912)

If you're used to Microsoft's rendering, Apple's text will look slightly blurry. If you're used to Apple's rendering, Microsoft's will look weirdly spaced.

With my eyes, blurry is the normal state of affairs anyway.

Interestingly I don't get the same impression about MS rendering when in VS2010. I feel like I prefer its rendering over VS2008

Re:Not suprising (1)

gmurray (927668) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105040)

Don't know for sure, but I think the text editor in VS2010 might be using WPF, which has a much newer text rendering subsystem than GDI+. As to the specifics, someone else may need to chime in.

Re:Not suprising (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105120)

Don't know for sure, but I think the text editor in VS2010 might be using WPF, which has a much newer text rendering subsystem than GDI+. As to the specifics, someone else may need to chime in.

Yep it does use WPF but I would have thought that ultimately it all went through the same MS technologies to get to the screen that IE uses. Obviously I am making an assumption there

Re:Not suprising (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104868)

However I much prefer the text rendering of Safari

This is so true but for me safari suck, it does not match my mental model of a browser, to me a perfect browser would have the text rendering of Safari, the speed of Chrome and the l&f and extensibility of Firefox.

Re:Not suprising (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105122)

And the extensive user base of IE so that all the sites are written to operate properly in it!

Re:Not suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104680)

IE gets a lot of flak from programmers and coders because of its long history of not supporting standards or supporting them in their own non-standard ways. IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and then IE6... It started getting a lot better with IE7 though.

The bad news is that you need Windows Vista or Windows 7 to use IE9, so that leaves a lot of testers out... I already had to get a Windows XP license just to test with IE6 and IE7, now I need to get Windows 7 to test for IE9?

And before anyone tells me to use this or that emulator, there's always other problems with these solutions, especially the fonts support. The rendering is different enough that I want the real thing instead.

Re:Not suprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104904)

IE gets a lot of flak from programmers and coders because of its long history of not supporting standards or supporting them in their own non-standard ways. IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and then IE6... It started getting a lot better with IE7 though.

The thing about Microsoft is that they're a company with very little imagination but a lot of perserverance. Just like their idea of how to make an OS was to (poorly) copy first CP/M and then Apple and their idea of how to make a phone is to copy the approach used by iPhone, their approach with browsers was to copy Netscape - Netscape introduced a load of Netscape only functions, Netscape encouraged 'looks best in Netscape' and Microsoft folloed suit. It was working for someone else so follow my leader. Then Netscape faded from the scene (via AOL etc) leaving the Mozilla Foundation behind which took what seemed like a lifetime to get a browser out the door and IE lost momentum until... suddenly Firefox was getting taken seriously, market share rising. what does Microsoft do? Well Firefox is the competitor now, what are they doing? Standards compliance, slowly but more and more so what do Microsoft do? They start doing standards compliance too. It takes a while but perserverance is what they're good at.

Re:Not suprising (2, Funny)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104722)

Steve Ballmer, is that you?

Re:Not suprising (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104774)

Careful. That kind of talk doesn't go over too well around here.

Well I'm going to say congrats... (4, Interesting)

catbutt (469582) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104576)

....to Microsoft, for moving in the right direction of adopting standards. I still hate you, Microsoft, but I hate you less.

Now figure out a way to get people to stop using IE6. (maybe an add-on to IE9 that makes it so you can run your ancient IE6 only apps?)

Re:Well I'm going to say congrats... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104720)

It remains to be seen if IE9 supports rounded CSS corners, shadows, etc... And what about the file API and XmlHttpRequest uploads?

I can't test as all I have is Windows XP inside VMWare.

Re:Well I'm going to say congrats... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104778)

It does support quite a bit of the css3 draft including rounded corner, box shadows, etc..

I find it funny that IE (from 7+) seems to have the best implementation of @font-face

Re:Well I'm going to say congrats... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104878)

How does IE7+ have the best implementation of @font-face? The other browsers support it too. The whole thing about the file formats and the licensing just gives me a headache, though...

Opera is a close second. (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104582)

I wonder.... realistically, how does +/-10% really translate to the user experience?

Re:Opera is a close second. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104642)

Considering that most HTML 5 sites are coded to work with Firefox/Chrome/Safari and no one is really developing actively for IE in terms of HTML 5, I'd imagine that for the time being it doesn't really make a bit of difference.

And let's ignore that big fat '0' (2, Funny)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104650)

in the foreigncontent row

Re:Opera is a close second. (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104688)

If I average the percentages, I get IE 1st, Firefox 2nd, Chrome 3rd, Opera 4th, and Safari 5th. How do you figure Opera is a close second?

Re:Opera is a close second. (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104770)

See my reply to my reply above. I believe it's called "confirmatory bias" Maybe I should go into politics.

NSF Award page (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104586)

cause the story does not link directly to it...lazy!

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1012208 [nsf.gov]

Re:NSF Award page (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104692)

You may want to post that in the other thread [slashdot.org] ... you know, the one about anonymizing data?

I feel conflicted (2, Funny)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104596)

On one hand, Microsoft managed to produce an excellent product that's almost fully compatible with the latest standards.

On the other hand, they're the same people who's responsible for summoning the Devil's own child into this world (under the trademark of IE6).

I honestly don't know what to feel about them right now.

Re:I feel conflicted (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104798)

Honestly? No one cares what you feel about them either.

Re:I feel conflicted (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104814)

Its easy to look back at IE6 and say "holy crap what a wreck!" but IE6 happened because the standards weren't moving fast enough. There is a reason IE6 took so much ground, because it actually did what people wanted. Then years later people come in with how it should have been done and now IE6 is the devil. I mean, yeah, its a pain in the ass and unfortunate, but its not like we didn't get anything out of the deal.

Re:I feel conflicted (0)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104988)

I mean, yeah, its a pain in the ass and unfortunate, but its not like we didn't get anything out of the deal.

And continuing to get something out of the deal. Namely - "web" sites that are really IE6 sites.

Re:I feel conflicted (1)

rraylion (1406761) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104856)

Advise on how to feel...

Too little, to late.

I like many people like firefox... and like many of those, I now love Chrome. Too late MS, I am now less vurnerable using a browser that has sandboxing and process security built in. I sleep better using Chrome.

Re:I feel conflicted (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104992)

Would you rather we have seen what abomination Netscape could have come up with if they were successful in continuing development on from Navigator 4, or have people really forgotten the cluster fuck that was the NN4 'series'?

Re:I feel conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34105000)

IE6 for *when* it came out was an excellent browser. Then MS spent the next 8 years ignoring it.

At the time it was pretty much IE6, Netscape 5, and Firefox 0.8. Firefox was 'promising and looking good but not yet'. Netscape was mr crash. And IE6 was wiping the floor with them in speed, compatibility, usability, and bunches of cool programability. Then the 'welp we have won lets do something else' hit. People used to ask MS to port IE6 to other platforms (mac, bsd, linux, etc). It was that good for the time. Now not so much...

congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104602)

somebody please send them a cake!

What kind of a "standard" is this? (3, Funny)

cowtamer (311087) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104628)

Perhaps my understanding of "standard" is a bit skewed, but isn't there something wrong when the best that a browser in its 9th version backed by the most powerful software company in the world can do is just be the "most compatible" one out there?

All FTP clients I use are 100% compatible with the FTP standard. I believe Adobe Flash player is 100% compatible with Flash. I think most mail clients are 100% IMAP and POP3 compatible.

Shouldn't standards be straightforward enough so that all parties wishing to comply to them simply can? Shouldn't compatibility with a standard be a floor instead of a ceiling to asymptotically crept towards?

I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104690)

I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?

HTML5 isn't even finished yet.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (2, Insightful)

Jahf (21968) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104756)

Technically ... neither is IE9. This article seems to fail in pointing out that it just compared a browser still in the preview phase to other browsers that are released. The board will keep changing, the difference is that within a few months of IE9 coming out there will be new Firefox and Chrome releases. The further difference here being that a year or two after IE9 coming out those same browsers (and likely Webkit/Safari, Opera, etc) will all have multiple releases.

So IE9 has essentially caught up ... so what? Microsoft was dragged kicking and screaming to the point of being the "most compliant" and once it reaches that goal it will end up touting that marker well after the other browsers eclipse it.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (5, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104826)

Technically ... neither is IE9. This article seems to fail in pointing out that it just compared a browser still in the preview phase to other browsers that are released.

The "released" browsers are:

Google Chrome 7.0.517.41 beta
Firefox 4 Beta 6
Opera 11.00 alpha (build 1029)
Safari Version 5.0.2 (6533.18.5)

The only one which doesn't have "beta" or even "alpha" in its name is Safari. So probably that one is actually released.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104842)

Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't it finished?

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (2, Interesting)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104718)

the problem is people using standards while they are still being defined.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104730)

oracle ftp clients are not standard compliant. I know of some other clients that are not standards compatible.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (4, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104736)

Thats why it used to be referred to as a recommendation, instead of standard (lots of discussions around it, though i think the likes of ISO and whatsnot now consider W3C stuff as actual standards).

That said, if you ever tried to implement anything from the W3C, its full of holes, inconsistencies, ambiguous parts, things "left to the implementator", and all around, Microsoft's OOXML may have been a lousy ISO standard, but it sure would fit right in anything the W3C ever published.

The only reason it kindda works, and that so many browsers seem to implement it, is because the likes of those working on Firefox, Safari, etc, kind of agree on stuff they don't like or the standard doesn't dictate. That also makes IE8 look worse than it actually is (not that its not awful, but in a few (very few) cases web developers will complain about things on which IE8 is actually right, and Firefox is wrong, but Safari, and Chrome are wrong the same way).

Its not just HTML/CSS/whatever. The XQuery specs for example, are just as bad.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104740)

I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?

If it makes you feel any better IE 9 is 100% Microsoft compatible ... the most Microsoft compatible browser under development.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105022)

I'll believe that once I see it with my own eyes.
In the past I've encountered several cases where IE had problems with correctly-written scripts in Microsoft's Javascript dialect. To me it was just a case of consistency. If they ignore other people's standards then why should they comply with their own ones?

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34105116)

Yeah, given Microsoft's track record, I'd expect them to be 85% Microsoft compatible at best... probably only 65% if you consider how compatible their other software is.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104752)

All FTP clients I use are 100% compatible with the FTP standard.

Just recently I had issues with an embedded device that had a built-in FTP client. It worked perfectly when connected to the MS XP FTP server, and it worked perfectly when connected to a FileZilla FTP server running on Win 7. But it failed miserably with talking to the MS Win 7 FTP server. Tech support claimed the issue was that their system was not tested with Win7. I'm not deep enough into the FTP RFC's to know who was ultimately at fault, but I am still shaking my head as after all it is simply FTP!

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

c0ol (628751) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104782)

W3C doesn't create standards, they document status-quo as a recommendation for standardization. Most major browser vendors have a chair on the W3C, and they hash out differences there, however many browsers have not fully implemented what people want in HTML5 or even HTML4 for that matter fully. The lesser used features are not implemented consistently, so the W3C cannot really document them accurately without much discussion. Basically the typical model for standard creation does not exists here. There is no reference implementation like there is in all of the examples you mention.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (3, Insightful)

Jahf (21968) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104796)

What an awful example. FTP is a nearly completely static protocol with no defined presentation layer for user interaction. On the other hand HTML5 is not even a completed standard yet and is almost entirely focused around creating user interactivity with the data.

What you are missing is this ... FTP doesn't correlate to HTML5. FTP correlates to HTTP. HTML5 would correlate more with the concept of the GUI to utilize FTP. Of which there are MANY completely different examples, none of which work perfectly for all situations. If you want to compare FTP to something regarding the web, then make comments about how well your web browser complies with the ability to communicate with a web server. In which case pretty much all browsers will be compliant.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104806)

what you're missing is that a standard is defined using language
if it's not clearly defined (through definition or intention), aspects open up to interpretation

IE5/6 have screwed up rendering engine compared to other browsers
they both followed the spec. the spec then got revisied to clarify what it meant
the older versions have not been updated to meet those revisions
this is now why writing a spec takes a long time

i think this was highlighted by microsoft about a year ago with css3
it showed how all browsers rendered dashed border-radius differently
this was because the spec wasn't clear enough on what it should look like

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104890)

You make a good point, I tried but can't rationalize it when thinking of these individual tests.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104916)

I think most mail clients are 100% IMAP and POP3 compatible.

God does not write IMAP server or client software. He does not make mistakes. If God makes mistake, we all are doomed. There are myriad of ways to fsckup email program. I don't think that all (or most) IMAP clients are compatible with IMAP specification. There are not compatible. They are good enough and normal user can't notice incompatibility with email standards. Some commonly used email programs (Mozilla and Outlook Express) break email standards in their default settings.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104970)

You've got it the wrong way round. It's very, very rare to find software that implements any standard correctly. (Or a standard that's complete enough to allow interoperable implementations.) Hell, most software parses email addresses incorrectly.

The way most standards-based software interoperates despite the bugs is by only using the core features.

HTML is odd, probably unique, because it's very complicated and people expect the corner cases, many of which aren't properly specified, to work consistently across all implementations.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105076)

I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?

HTML is very complicated and ambiguous. "Standards Compliant" relies on judgement calls.

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

master0ne (655374) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105100)

FTP, IMAP and POP3 are protocols. HTML is a standard. I promise you your browser is HTTP compliant (which is the equivalent of your FTP client being FTP compliant). Flash is a closed "standard" in that the company that makes the software also sets the standard.It is much easier for adobe to create software that matches their "standard" as whatever they come up with if the "standard". With that said, creating a rendering engine that can properly render CSS, PHP, HTML4, HTML5, JAVASCRIPT, and the multitudes of other "standards" out there is anything but easy. Its like working with a puzzle, you know what the end product should be, and how it should behave in general, however the parts you have to create the end product bear NO RESEMBELENCE to the finished produce. And standard "compatibility" is neither a floor, or a ceiling, as not being 100% compliant, can happen because you implement non standard features (too much) or by not implementing features the standard calls for (not enough). Keep in mind that this standard has no working proof of concept. Currently it is a set of parameters used to define how things should work, and the browsers are doing their best to fall into those parameters. Its a huge amount of work to get one of these browsers to be standards compliant. As soon as one browser archives compliance, another standard comes along to supersede the standard they just complied with. This is a never ending process, and its due to this turn over that there is not one browser which is 100% standards compliant with every standard out there.

Your comparison is apples to oranges

Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105126)

For Microsoft, following any standard at all is very unusual and newsworthy. :P

You're right on these points, but HTML5 is a brand-new standard, so it is to be expected that most current software does not support it yet.

This is good news (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104698)

I'm no Microsoft fan, but like everyone else who works on web applications, I can say that it will make my life much easier if IE9 does a good job of implementing the standards.

Unfortunately, the technology I'm really waiting to see from Microsoft is something that will cause all of the existing copies of IE6 to spontaneously combust.

My first suspicion (3, Interesting)

snsh (968808) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104726)

Did Microsoft just manage to pull an OpenOfficeXML with the HTML5 standard?

Re:My first suspicion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34105106)

1997 has come and gone. Calm down.

Tried with latest chromium (3, Interesting)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104728)

Just tried with latest chromium, it passwed all random tests I clicked on, that the tested chrome failed on.

Irrelevant (1, Troll)

loxosceles (580563) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104776)

A good browser has more to do with continuous improvement than a one-time "we're compatible with the latest standards right now!" IE9 betas may be great today, but shortly after its release, it will be almost certainly be behind Chrome. Shortly after that, Firefox and Safari will pass it by.

Re:Irrelevant (2, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104936)

Apparently you weren't paying attention when IE6 became IE7, nor when IE7 became IE8, and you're certainly not paying attention now when IE8 is about to become IE9.

Microsoft is obviously continually improving their product. If they weren't, this article would not exist.

They are not, however, doing it on the schedule you would like them to do it on, and for some reason in your mind that qualifies as stagnation. Most reasonable people can recognize that this is, in fact, a major improvement in a long line of major improvements, which obviously discredits your claim completely.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104808)

That page gives apparently random and usually low results for browsers where the test hasn't been run yet. Half the tests have not been run on safari, firefox, or opera.

What about performance? (1)

wervr (712696) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104894)

The biggest difference I have noticed between HTML5 implementations is how much faster chrome renders the stuff.

And in other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104898)

IE9 now passes almost 50% of the HTML4 test suite. Looks like they are treating standards conformance seriously. Congratulations!

Re:And in other news... (1)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105052)

I've been seeing some of Microsoft's fancy banner ads lately touting the improved HTML 5 capabilities of IE9.... nice looking animation, small file size, played nice with the rest of the browser... except the ads were all done in Flash. Hm.

Dear W3C, there exists good test for HTML5 already (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34104950)

Dear W3C, there exists a good test for HTML5 already: http://html5test.com/ [html5test.com] - use that F*sake.

Time to buy some Ice Skates (1)

jcl-xen0n (1926472) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104954)

On a related note, Hell just froze over...

Hmmm. MSDN? (1)

TagrenHawk (19856) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104962)

I wonder if the folks over at the W3C were recently gifted with free MSDN subscriptions...

Of course, why would they test the stuff we actually use?

Some of tests seem dumb, and site seems broken. (2, Interesting)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 2 years ago | (#34104978)

I stopped clicking through the tests one-by-one when I came across one that would have been fixed by a simple “if (x1 == x2 && y1 == y2) return;”. I went ahead and scrolled down the list, though... for some reason a lot of the tests near the bottom read “No Result” for many/most browsers, and clicking a test at random (canvas(2d.transformation.scale..zero.html) [w3.org] ) that said “No Result” in every column except Safari gave me a 404 error.

I’m not terribly impressed.

Congratulations, with a caveat (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105024)

I'd feel a lot better about this if Microsoft weren't the one writing so many of the tests. As things stand, it smells an awful lot like the fox guarding the hen house.

So I am one of them (1)

sosaited (1925622) | more than 2 years ago | (#34105074)

So I finally got confirmation that I am a M$ basher/hater. As soon as I read the title of the article, I said to myself What a load of crap without reading anything further.
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>