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!

First Look At the ACID3 Browser Test

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the turn-on-tune-in-render dept.

The Internet 133

ddanier writes "Now that all major browsers have mastered the ACID2 test (at least in some preview versions), work on ACID3 has begun. The new test will focus on ECMAScript, DOM Level 3, Media Queries, and data: URLs. 100 tests will be put into functions each returning either true or false depending on the result of the test. The current preview of ACID3 is still missing 16 tests."

cancel ×

133 comments

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

Please don't Slashdot it ! (0, Offtopic)

o'reor (581921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998776)

There are probably a few developers who might find it useful if the site stays up !

Re:Please don't Slashdot it ! (2, Funny)

Thornburg (264444) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998812)

Can't we acid test the ACID Test server?

If it can't hold up, maybe it needs some work... :-)

Heh, another type of ACID test... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999128)

Willy Wonka's ACID Trip... http://wonkatrip.ytmnd.com/ [ytmnd.com]

Re:Please don't Slashdot it ! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21998818)

my browser passed!! Test Results [hixie.ch]

Anti-MS Hate: Teh New Generation!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999510)

Awesome! Now that IE passes Acid2, it took all the pule out of the MS-hater's sailes.

Time for the new test, this time geared specifically at "getting" Microsoft, just like anything else FOSSies make. Woohoo! Teh phuture iz nowzorz!!!

From the summary: (5, Funny)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998784)

Te new test...
Shouldn't that be Teh new test...?

Re:From the summary: (5, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998890)

No, no, no... As anyone can clearly see, that Te is an acronym for test engineering [wikipedia.org] . So get off kdawson's back. We should appreciate his masterful skill at creating what's on the surface a fairly obvious typo, but in reality is a clever reference to the field that the article discusse.

Re:From the summary: (4, Funny)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999942)

a clever reference to the field that the article discusse.

discourse in social choice using selective spelling excuses?

Re:From the summary: (1)

cataBob (529363) | more than 6 years ago | (#22002162)

We're now approaching our final destination, Itchy and Scratchy Land: the amusement park of the future where nothing can possi- blye go wrong.

DiscusseS (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001436)

You uncultured clod.

Re:From the summary: (5, Funny)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000314)

You only saw "Te" because your browser rendered it incorrectly.

I bet some devs are really pissed now (2, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998876)

Finally, the bigger browsers are ACID2 compatible now. But suddenly those fuckers release a new ACID test. Now everybody's standard incompatible again. Let's see who succesfully implements ACID3 first.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (3, Informative)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998912)

Just tested, Opera 9.5Beta and Firefox 3 Beta3pre are pretty impressive.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (4, Informative)

tulmad (25666) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998952)

Firefox 2.0.0.10 fails the test
Camino 1.0.3 crashes when starting the test
Safari 2.0.4 doesn't even get started. It says I need to enable JavaScript, which is enabled.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (2, Informative)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998992)

Opera 9.5Beta and Firefox Beta3pre failed too. Just FYI.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (5, Insightful)

paulpach (798828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999450)

This is an easy to reproduce set of bugs someone else found on their browser.

I would be glad to receive bug reports with an easy to use test case. It saves me the trouble of determining if it is a bug or not, coming up with a test case, the pain of communicating back and forth with the customer trying to find out what they are doing and how the bug is being triggered, etc. Also, this test suite will improve compatibility with other browsers so it will reduce bug reports in the long run.

Why the heck would they be pissed?

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (1)

kat_skan (5219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999804)

Why the heck would they be pissed?

Because their manager is pissed that they have to spend more money shoring up their shoddy product and is taking it out on the dev team?

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (3, Insightful)

stewby18 (594952) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999520)

> Firefox 2.0.0.10 fails the test
> Camino 1.0.3 crashes when starting the test
> Safari 2.0.4 doesn't even get started.

Those aren't the current versions of any of those browsers--not even close in the case of Camino and Safari--so that's not a terribly interesting test list.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (0)

tulmad (25666) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999868)

Firefox is one minor-minor-minor version off
Camino... I'll give you that one. I apparently need to upgrade.
Safari is the latest version available for Tiger, which is the latest available version of the OS that can run on the laptop I have here.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (3, Informative)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999976)

Safari 3 is available for both Tiger and Leopard. The 10.4.11 update [apple.com] includes Safari 3.

Not in 2.0.0.x. Try Minefield. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000528)

Firefox is one minor-minor-minor version off
Minor-minor-minor versions of Firefox are on the 2.0 branch. The 2.0 branch contains primarily fixes to defects that result in data loss, crashes, or privacy violations, not major changes to the behavior of the rendering engine. Acid2 compliance is in Minefield and probably in the next beta.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22002260)

>> Those aren't the current versions of any of those browsers

OK, just a bone to pick with those always-connected bleeding-edge update-first-ask-questions-later techs who don't know better.

I don't know about the non Firefox ones, but... I rolled out the NEWEST 2.0.0.6 and can tell you it was up to date this past august. It's only been 6 months, and it's very possible for guys everywhere to be falling behind like that.

Right now 2.0.0.11 is out but even numerically it doesn't merit getting pushed manually to my users: Because it's not even a decent fraction of a point release, you can't expect the actual rendering engine to have reworked itself into acing an ACID test. You'll only find bugfixes in fractional increases. Beta software like FF3 can't be used for comparisons, so the GP is OK. Unless the others are incredibly outdated...

Undoing moderation (0, Offtopic)

ESqVIP (782999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000408)

I'm sorry, I screwed up while modding your comment, and I'm commenting to clear it.

The new AJAX-y moderation system seriously needs an undo feature, a grace period to change your mind (before notifying the server), or at the very least some form of confirmation before submitting.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (4, Informative)

jimbojw (1010949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22002054)

After prompting me if I wanted to open empty.txt, it segfaulted my Konqueror with this backtrace:

Using host libthread_db library "/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libthread_db.so.1".
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1232832304 (LWP 8079)]
[KCrash handler]
#6 0xb609a9a1 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libkhtml.so.4
#7 0xb5f325d4 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libkhtml.so.4
#8 0x081e1f38 in ?? ()
#9 0xbfcde5a4 in ?? ()
#10 0xbfcde588 in ?? ()
#11 0xb60fe4fd in DOM::NodeFilter::acceptNode () from /usr/lib/libkhtml.so.4
Backtrace stopped: frame did not save the PC


I think we have a zeroday on our hands boys!

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21998936)

Hmmm I wonder which of the big 2 will be compliant first...

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (4, Insightful)

Bozzio (183974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998962)

Passing the ACID2 Test doesn't imply standard compliance. It just means the browsers implement a certain subset of the standards correctly (or effectively correctly).

The ACID3 test won't be a test for standards compliance either. The way I see it it's just a tool to motivate developers to work TOWARDS standards compliance.

The ACID3 test should, therefore, not be seen as a new set of standards. It's just a different subset of standards.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000260)

AFAIK, the purpose of the ACID tests were basically to demonstrate a specific set of rendering bugs, supposedly bugs chosen because they were common complaints of web developers. So the purpose wasn't to test standards compliance, but to give browser developers a target to hit in order to help web developers with some of their more common problems.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000942)

But it didn't really give any indication on what was actually going wrong. You get this smiley face, or some messed up rendering of one, and you're supposed to guess at what's not working right. I would like it better if they had a lot of HTML+CSS in ways it would generally be used, with an image beside it of what it should look like. Don't give me any smiley face junk. That tells neither the developers or users what does and doesn't work.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22002738)

I do agree with you that that would be useful. But the great thing about ACID is that it has a cool name and it is pretty damned easy to understand if a browser passes or not. End users don't really care about IE's broken box model, or whatever, but you can make them care about a snappy test. Some of 'em, anyway.

Not quite a new "subset" ... (2, Insightful)

davide marney (231845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000748)

Acid2 tests a particular interpretation of how the standards should be implemented.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (4, Informative)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998978)

ACID2 and ACID3 tests don't test if browsers are standard compatible. They only test some features. To get better overview of the standards supports, try this page:
http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-summary?IE7=on&FX2=on&OP9=on&uas=CUSTOM [webdevout.net]

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (1, Interesting)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998984)

It is hard for me to understand the logic that once a new test is created that everything is incompatible again.. Doesn't everything still pass the acid2? I thought that the acid tests were testing stuff that was already supposed to be an included feature to see if it worked. the acid test itself isnt REALLY what determines standards compliance.... is it?!

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999058)

No, it isn't.

Which is why the GP shouldn't be modded as "Insightful."

The ACID Tests are meant to test certain parts of the proposed standards.

Passing the Test doesn't imply standards compliance.
BUT
Standards compliances DOES imply passing the tests.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999382)

But who tests to make sure these tests are standards compliant?


>:O


humans (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000586)

But who tests to make sure these tests are standards compliant?
Humans. There was a defect in the first draft of Acid2 that was corrected between the first publication and now. There are other intentional defects in Acid2 intended to test for correct handling of defective CSS.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (3, Informative)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999484)

The ACID Tests are meant to test certain parts of the proposed standards.

Everything in the ACID3 test is at an implementable stage (look at Anne's blog post in the summary (i.e., RTFA)), and has been since 2004.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (1)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001538)

Please don't include malformed HTML in ACID3!

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (5, Insightful)

ben kohler (1109391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999078)

Finally, the bigger browsers are ACID2 compatible now. But suddenly those fuckers release a new ACID test. Now everybody's standard incompatible again. Let's see who succesfully implements ACID3 first.
these aren't new standards, just a new test that sheds some light on how standards-incompatible our beloved browsers still are

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000064)

Or how ill-specified the standards are that this is what has to pass for a validation suite.

bad assumption (1)

HeroreV (869368) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001830)

You are wrong to assume that (real) validation suites do not exist. There are several, and they are very comprehensive. The Acid tests are not validation suites, but that doesn't mean validation suites do not exist.

Re:I bet some devs are really pissed now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22000126)

Are you kidding? I'd love it if someone wrote my test suites for me.

Various Scores (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998970)

Final scores of course are subject to change on the final test:

  • Firefox 3 beta 2 @ Windows XP: 62%*
  • Internet Explorer 7 @ Windows XP: Dear God... you need to try it yourself. Viewing the generated source is needed to see the result is 24%
  • Opera 9.5 build 9721 @ Windows XP: 65%
  • lynx and elinks @ Windows XP: No JavaScript support. :(
  • Opera 9.3 @ Wii: 61%
  • Opera 8.5 @ Nintendo DS: 1%

* - script takes long enough to run that browser prompts you to kill it.

Re:Various Scores (4, Informative)

mzs (595629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999030)

Safari 3.0.3 on Mac OS X 10.5.1 does 50%. It does not have the little colored squares as in the reference though.

Re:Various Scores (1)

ddocjohn (1019028) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000360)

Safari's nightly build (r29385) has a score of 70%, and fails at the linktest.

Re:Various Scores (1)

Henk Poley (308046) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001242)

Webkit svn 29385 reaches 70/100. But doesn't show the colored squares either.

Re:Various Scores (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999286)

IE 6 supports 100% if the standards, or so it claims.

And the IE6 version, you don't even have to compare it to the reference rendering.

Re:Various Scores (4, Informative)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999326)

lynx and elinks @ Windows XP: No JavaScript support. :(

I don't know what versions you're using, but at least for elinks (and links), they both support javascript. Just has to be compiled in.

eix elinks
* www-client/elinks
          Available versions: 0.11.2 0.11.2-r1 0.11.3 {X bittorrent bzip2 debug finger ftp gopher gpm guile idn ipv6 javascript lua nls nntp perl ruby ssl unicode zlib}
          Homepage: http://elinks.or.cz/ [elinks.or.cz]
          Description: Advanced and well-established text-mode web browser

eix ^links$
[I] www-client/links
          Available versions: (2) 2.1_pre26 2.1_pre28-r1
                {X directfb fbcon gpm javascript jpeg livecd png sdl ssl svga tiff unicode}
          Installed versions: 2.1_pre28-r1(2)(21:18:19 11/07/07)(javascript ssl tiff unicode -X -directfb -fbcon -gpm -jpeg -livecd -png -sdl -svga)
          Homepage: http://links.twibright.com/ [twibright.com]
          Description: links is a fast lightweight text and graphic web-browser

So while they do support javascript, they don't support iframes, and the test uses 3 of those.

MOD PARENT UP!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22001108)

NT

Re:Various Scores (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999408)

I ran the newest versions of IE, Opera, and FireFox, same scores as you but w/o any hanging... might want to fix your computer!

Re:Various Scores (1)

glpierce (731733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999414)

Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP: 59%

Re:Various Scores (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999528)

Generic Web Browser @ PS3: 34% ... no little reference boxes though, so YMMV.

IE6 IS 100% OF THE STANDARDS!!!!1111 (2, Funny)

nitio (825314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999680)

Well, for IE6 it reports 100% of the standards as I can prove here [imageshack.us] ! In your face Firefox!

Re:IE6 IS 100% OF THE STANDARDS!!!!1111 (1)

codename.matrix (889422) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999824)

well it runs all tests but looks nothing like the reference - typical IE6

Re:Various Scores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999726)

FF3.0a8 on gutsy ubuntu linux gets 64%
Opera 9.0b1 on same gets 65% and a FAIL in the upper left corner.

Re:Various Scores (1)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999920)

Opera 9.12 on OLPC (One Laptop Per Child): 55%

Re:Various Scores (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000050)

# Firefox 3 beta 2 @ Windows XP: 62%*
Same here, although it always says it should be 'smooth', and I'd say it's nowhere close that.

# Internet Explorer 7 @ Windows XP
My eyes! My eyes!

Re:Various Scores (3, Informative)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000188)

Safari 3.0.4 on Windows using WebKit-r29380 (today's nightly build), Safari scores a 70/100.

Re:Various Scores (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000262)

> Firefox 3 beta 2 @ Windows XP: 62%*

Firefox 3 nightly @ Linux: 63 %

Konqi 3.5.8 crashes, Firefox 2.0.11 fails at 59... (2, Interesting)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21998988)

Safari 3.0.4 (Windows) hangs at 60, Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.11 messes up so badly the result can't be read...

The test looks interesting, for sure. And it's going to raise the game for standards compliance!

Firefox 3 Beta 2 (Windows) gets to 62 (2, Informative)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999106)

... and looks somewhat like the reference image...

Opera 9.2.4 (Windows) reaches 55 (but looks horrible)...

Firefox 3 looks like the best shot at it so far.

Re:Konqi 3.5.8 crashes, Firefox 2.0.11 fails at 59 (1)

pragma_x (644215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000580)

The test looks interesting, for sure. And it's going to raise the game for standards compliance!

Also, with the emphasis on ECMA script and animation, it'll raise standards and compliance for games.

Re:Konqi 3.5.8 crashes, Firefox 2.0.11 fails at 59 (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001050)

Funny, in the version of Acid 3 I tested a week ago. Konqueror got to 85%. Konqueror 4.0 now stops on some weird embedding of text/plain assumption the test makes.

More fun acid hacking for me :)

Re:Konqi 3.5.8 crashes, Firefox 2.0.11 fails at 59 (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001250)

I just noticed this now, I tried to view it but it stopped and said 1/100 passed, though i was supre Konqueror couldn't be that wrong sicne KHTML was first engine to display Acid2 correctly (though not in Konqueror).

I'm wondering whether the Konqueror devs will notice and fix this, since a drop of 84% in that amount of time is definitely messed up.

Swell, but misses the point (0)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999050)

Swell, better than nothing, but tests miss the point. It was pointed out by Dykstra i think, that tests can reveal the presence of errors, but never their absence. So testing is in some sense a pointless pursuit. Being able to display a smiley face tests something like 1 googletillionth of the phase space.

Re:Swell, but misses the point (2, Insightful)

roggg (1184871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999312)

It was pointed out by Dykstra i think, that tests can reveal the presence of errors, but never their absence. So testing is in some sense a pointless pursuit.
I got your missing the point right here. It's not necessary to prove the absence of errors. Developers use the presence of errors (and knowledge of those errors) to direct efforts at improving products. In what sense is discovering errors a pointless pursuit?

Re:Swell, but misses the point (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000906)

>In what sense is discovering errors a pointless pursuit?

Because it focuses on the tip of the iceberg, the symptoms, not the disease. I wonder how many of the browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, instead of being engineered to meet the specs.

Re:Swell, but misses the point (2, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001096)

That would be pointless. If browsers are getting mere hacks to display the specific acid test page correctly, the jig will be up when web developers start using the features tested by that acid test and discover that the features don't really work. I suspect that no browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, as that tweaking wouldn't fool web developers for any significant period of time.

Re:Swell, but misses the point (1)

roggg (1184871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001584)

Because it focuses on the tip of the iceberg, the symptoms, not the disease. I wonder how many of the browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, instead of being engineered to meet the specs.

Your medical analogy is apt. Black-box testing is pointless in exactly the same way that going to a doctor when you are sick is pointless. The symptoms are all you have initially to indicate there is any disease or what it's nature might be. Those with clear-box knowledge (doctors or developers) can use the symptoms as a starting point fur further inquiry to diagnose the underlying problem.

I know what theory says about testing and correctness and all that. It doesn't work that way in the real world. Testing shouldn't be the only technique used to produce quality software, but it is very very far from a pointless pursuit.

Testing is the best we have (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999378)

Yes, testing can never prove a program correct. On the other hand, do you think you'd get anywhere trying to prove that anything about any browser is correct using formal methods? Especially when the source code for most browsers is not even publicly available.

The Acid tests are also not really about finding obscure bugs, but about demonstrating which basic features work and which ones do not work. After all major browsers pass an Acid test, web developers can attempt to use the features tested by the Acid test. That is when the obscure bugs will be found.

Re:Testing is the best we have (1)

DiLLeMaN (324946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001384)

"Especially when the source code for most browsers is not even publicly available."

Define "most browsers"? The source for IE and Opera isn't available, but for Firefox, Safari, Konqueror and lynx/links it is. Since a lot of browsers that are not in that list are based on either Gecko or WebKit, I'd say that the source code for most browsers is, in fact, available.

Re:Testing is the best we have (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001476)

Maybe you're right, due to the fact that open source layout engines have more web browsers designed around them by their very nature. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the source code for most layout engines [wikipedia.org] is not publicly available.

Where is the reference image from? (4, Interesting)

Aaron Isotton (958761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999116)

Something I always wanted to know (applies to the older Acid tests, too): how do they render the reference image? Is someone creating them by hand? How do we know no mistake was made when creating the reference image?

Re:Where is the reference image from? (5, Funny)

patio11 (857072) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999300)

It's created by an advanced, custom-built browser which, for certain input, correctly renders a perfectly standards-compliant reference image. Just don't ask to use the browser on any other input.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999424)

I'm glad I don't have mod points, at the moment.

I don't know if you're trying to be Funny(sarcastic) or Informative.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999772)

He has a point - most browsers around are designed to cope with the non-standard/flawed/broken crap that passes for some websites these days. Use a standards compliant browser which does not make a best guess at working out what was really meant and rejects any errors you'll have problems with alot of sites.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 6 years ago | (#22002812)

Is there a plugin for Firefox that will tell me when a page is being rendered using these non-standard coping methods?

Re:Where is the reference image from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21999798)

I'm glad I don't have mod points, at the moment.

I don't know if you're trying to be Funny(sarcastic) or Informative.
It's obvious he's not trying to be sarcastic, otherwise he would be sounding like me.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

Flunitrazepam (664690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999846)

Can I use the browser on other input?

Re:Where is the reference image from? (5, Interesting)

thue (121682) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999442)

How do we know no mistake was made when creating the reference image?

You don't

I remember an article by the Apple guy who made ACID2 work on Safari (I think this was the first browser to make it work). One of the steps to get it working was to fix a bug in the test, when he couldn't make the reference result fit with what the test HTML said.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (5, Informative)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999654)

Yeah, it was David Hyatt who was working on getting Saf to pass (and got it to be the first browser to pass in any build, and the first to have a generally available release (i.e., a non-development build, even if public) -- the latter being the only thing that truly counts for passing the test).

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005_04.html#008011 [mozillazine.org] details the bug (in this case, it was the test itself that was wrong -- not the reference). The reference rendering for Acid3 is likely correct as the actual rendering isn't overly complex (the complexity is in the ECMAScript and DOM support), though with the complexity of some tests there could easily be bugs in the test again.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000444)

There ARE bugs in the test. Hopefully, when they are finished with it, there won't be.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000546)

In my view a test isn't a test until it is finished and can be used as a test, so it isn't yet a test (which means any current bugs are irrelevant).

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#22003226)

In my view a test isn't a test until it is finished and can be used as a test, so it isn't yet a test

Your view dramatically reduces the value of a test. It's very normal in any test process that every "failure" has to be evaluated to determine if the error is in the implementation, the test or even the specification. Building and running tests is how you find the issues that need to be resolved. Saying they're not tests until both the test and the specification have been proved correct is just a word game that makes it necessary to come up with some other term for the "tests" that aren't quite yet "tests", according to your definition. Because regardless of your view, such imperfect non-tests are extremely important tools in any testing process.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000542)

I know this may sound little "preachy"(?) but wouldn't that be one of the biggest benefits to open standards? People reviewing the standards, and fixing possible bugs or "workarounds" the original standard missed.

I just wish we could get that into the heads of the big software shops... you know who you are. It's unfortunate that money turns against a good idea.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (0)

Val314 (219766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000802)

Well.. Safari may pass the original ACID2, but it fails the ACID2 (no Data) test from http://hixie.ch/tests/evil/acid/002-no-data/#top [hixie.ch]
In fact, it always downloads a file "data006" when openig this page.

(tested with Safari 3.0.4 (5523.10.6) on Leopard)

Firefox 3 Beta passes this test.

Re:Where is the reference image from? (1)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999576)

That is a question of Faith

You're not supposed to question Faith

ECMAScript (1)

tsbiscaro (888711) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999190)

Much better than ivScript

So.... (1, Flamebait)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999664)

Are you telling me Firefox isn't a major browser? I just tried Acid2 on my FF 2.0.0.1.1 on Windows and it still looks like crap. How far behind is it?

Re:So.... (4, Informative)

Arimus (198136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999734)

Firefox is a major browser, however the version which passes ACID2 is Firefox 3, I think the first build which passed was around this time last year so either go with the development release (FF3 is currently in Beta).

ECMAScript, DOM Level 3 (2, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21999836)

Excellent. These two, especially, need to be tightened up (and in some cases, fixed) across the browsers.

Konqueror fails (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000002)

Konqueror 3.5.8 on KDE 3.5.8 (Debian Sid, AMD64; packages from Debian repository) fails with a segmentation fault.

But there's a newer version in the repository, so I'm going to upgrade and see what happens.

Re:Konqueror fails (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000550)

Interesting. The "new" version of Konqueror also claims to be 3.5.8.

This time, it asks me what to do with a file it is trying to download, then crashes (with a different-looking requester; maybe that also changed between versions).

Re:Konqueror fails (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000738)

Tits [slashdot.org] . Missed something important.

KDE4 isn't in Sid yet (it's a credit to Debian that "unstable" is actually so stable, that they have to have an "experimental" distribution). I'd grab a Kubuntu liveCD and try that, but it wouldn't necessarily prove anything: crashing in Kubuntu is hardly news.

co3k (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22000232)

mod point5 &and

lol (1)

Marin3 (988561) | more than 6 years ago | (#22000492)

i can't even read the score in IE6 :)

This is all just ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22001686)

I don't know how you can make the claim that all browsers currently pass the ACID2 test when most of them can only do it in their latest beta releases. That doesn't count. Wake me when the stable, in-production versions can do it. Even the latest stable version of FF can't do it and IE7 fails like Britney Spears' AA counselors. The Web Standards Project page claims the "internal build of IE 8" passes the ACID2 test. Wow, the internal build passes, let's all get hammered and celebrate. Lot of good that will do anyone for the next 5 years anyways.

ACID tests... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22001912)

Yay let the trips begin. LSD for everyone.

Woo hoo! (1)

jpellino (202698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22001942)

Safari displays the reference rendering jes' fine!

Oh, wait...

test (0, Redundant)

unablepostAC (1044474) | more than 6 years ago | (#22002194)

Scripting must be enabled to use this test.

Thats bad, really bad

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?