Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Acid3 Test Released

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the new-is-better-than-old dept.

Software 309

An anonymous reader writes ""The Web Standards Project has announced the release of Acid3, the latest test designed to expose flaws in the implementation of mature Web standards in browsers. 'By making sure their software adheres to the test, the creators of these products can be more confident that their software will display and function with Web pages correctly both now and with Web pages of the future. The Acid3 Test is designed to test specifications for Web 2.0, and exposes potential flaws in implementations of the public ECMAScript 262 and W3C Document Object Model 2 standards.' Screenshots at the Drunken Fist site show the success of Safari 3 (which originally scored 31, but is now Scoring 87/100) IE6, and IE7 (massive fail, of course)'." There are additional discussions of the new test happening around the web.

cancel ×

309 comments

Bad day for IE8 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654794)

It gets... 17. Heard at Microsoft "ACID3? We just passed ACID2! AH CRAP!"

Re:Bad day for IE8 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654958)

Yeah, well, Mozilla is also just passing ACID2 in FF3 as well.

And does not pass ACID3.

IE8 Cheats ACID2!! (1, Insightful)

feld (980784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655372)

IE8 doesn't pass Acid2! I think it cheats!

Check it out quickly guys!

http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ [webstandards.org] PASS

http://acid2.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org] FAIL

The only thing different between these tests is a 404 link on about line 130 of the source. Is IE8 cheating?!!!

Re:IE8 Cheats ACID2!! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655658)

The eyes for the test at acird2.acirdtests.org is cross-domain, which is causing it to fail because of boundary trusts.

Re:IE8 Cheats ACID2!! (1, Informative)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655674)

No. The test got screwed up. Everything fails that second one. Including FF3 and Safari 3.

Re:Bad day for IE8 (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654964)

At least that beta doesn't crash. When I ran on a recent Opera 9.50 beta build, it counted, stalled, stalled, crashed. ;-)

Re:Bad day for IE8 (0, Redundant)

zuro (1233628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655452)

actually, i just tested IE8 beta on acid2, and despite what they say, it fails

Re:Bad day for IE8 (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655816)

The test is screwed up again, probably because so many people are rushing to test IE8 in it. No browser passes Acid2 from the original site at this time. IE8 passes Acid2 mirrors, like the other browsers.

And just in time (0, Redundant)

drspliff (652992) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654856)

for IE8 to be released, finally claiming ACID2 support out of the box...

Now, I wonder if their PR people will slip up and accidentally write "ACID3" just to get any sort of news...

I would check out the screen captures, but... (1, Insightful)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654860)

Error establishing a database connection

That was fast. Even for slashdot.

Too late for IE8? (1, Insightful)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654862)

This might be coming onto the scene a little bit too late in order to complain about the upcoming IE8 not passing the test. It's a shame that this didn't come out last year.

Re:Too late for IE8? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655164)

It would be interesting to see if any of the Acid3 tests were also in Acid2 and were reported to be "passing" in IE8, indicating they hard-coded support for the Acid tests right in the browser.

-M

Re:Too late for IE8? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655244)

If they actually implemented the standards well, they wouldn't have to worry about specific tests, they would just do well on them by default. Now I don't think that any browser does 100% on Acid 3, but I think a lot of them do fairly well.

Re:Too late for IE8? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655548)

None of them do "well". The test is specifically designed to break them all.

Re:Too late for IE8? (4, Informative)

edwdig (47888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655748)

If they actually implemented the standards well, they wouldn't have to worry about specific tests, they would just do well on them by default.

Have you ever tried reading the HTML/CSS specs? They're huge and often vaguely worded. There were often sections that just weren't intuitive, and the only real approach to implementing them was to just figure out what other browser did and copy it. The specs were created by people who have no intention of implementing them themselves, and it really shows.

Firefox (2, Insightful)

BlowHole666 (1152399) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654868)

success of Safari 3 (which originally scored 31, but is now Scoring 87/100) IE6, and IE7 (massive fail, of course)'."
Umm what did Firefox get on this? What about Opera? If you are going to report something why not report all the facts. You listed three browsers where are the other two+ ?

Re:Firefox (5, Informative)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654918)

the test is here [acidtests.org] .

i'm getting a 50/100 in Firefox.

Re:Firefox (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655002)

Confirm the 50/100 on firefox 2 and I get 46/100 on Opera 9.25

Re:Firefox (1)

c00rdb (945666) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655400)

Firefox 3 nightly build got 67/100.

Re:Firefox (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655840)

I'm getting 404 in firefox.

Re:Firefox (1)

oopsilon (958290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655856)

I got a 65 in the SeaMonkey (2.0) nightly. Build string for the nightly:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9b5pre) Gecko/2008030501 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre

The Firefox nightly should be pretty close to that since that's also using Gecko [wikipedia.org] 1.9b.

For reference, SeaMonkey 1.1.8 scored 49.

Re:Opera (4, Informative)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654998)

I just tried it on Opera 9.5 Beta, build 9755. I got a 60/100. Then I tried again and got a 61/100. Then a 60/100 on a third try.

All of the rectangles are grey (two different shades), the test name is red and does not have a shadow, and there is an x in the upper right hand corner.

Re:Firefox (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655020)

Ooh, my Opera 9.50 weekly actually didn't crash this time. Maybe the test was changed, or something in Opera did.

Anyway, Opera 9.50.9807 receives a 65.

Re:Firefox (4, Interesting)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655036)

Interestingly, I'm not getting an 87 with Safari 3.0.4- I'm getting a 39.

Re:Firefox (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655052)

In firefox 2 the test shows a red picture of a cat.

Very interesting. I also got a 50/100. The rectangles are all messed up--they're gray, stacked vertically, and each rectangle is the width of the test. The test name also has no shadow.

Re:Firefox (1)

potatog (996901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655194)

firefox 3b3 32bit (gentoo x86-64) scores 57
rectangles are gray but well placed
some visual garbage: there are two red squares and 'X' on purple background
vertical borders of two rectangles are broken
no text shadow

Re:Firefox (1)

Naughty Bob (1004174) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655274)

Acid 2 showed the same picture with firefox, though I thought it was a rabbit.

When these Acid tests are 'testing', is anyone else reminded of Fry playing the holophonor, without worms?

Re:Firefox (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655122)

Umm what did Firefox get on this? What about Opera?

One the nightly build of Firefox 3 (built in VS 2008, running on Vista x64), it yields 67/100.

Having said that, is it really such a quantitative, numerical test?

Re:Firefox (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655366)

The test consists largely of 100 JavaScript tests designed to throw an assertion on failure and return a certain value on pass. The score is how many of the tests out of 100 pass. You can see which tests failed by clicking or shift-clicking the A in Acid3 after the test completes. In the sense that each test can relatively independently pass or fail (although some tests depend on previous tests), yes, it is a quantitative test.

The other part of the test is rendering the Acid3 text with shadow and the colored rectangles. By seeing how the Acid3 test fails in many other browsers, you can see that it can also render X, Fail, and a picture of a cat on failure of some rendering tests, typically in red so they stand out.

Re:Firefox (2, Insightful)

CrazedWalrus (901897) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655234)

I was wondering the same thing. Isn't it FF3 that just began rendering ACID2 correctly?

Besides, I see these as a process or goal -- giving the browser makers something concrete and visual to shoot for, as well as an easy way for users to judge the quality of their browser of choice. If the thing was just released, I'm not really surprised that many of the browsers don't pass it completely. Now a year or two from now is a different story, after the browser makers have had some time to address the issues the test points out.

Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (-1, Flamebait)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654872)

Of course the Microsoft software will fail these tests as that is what ACID tests are designed for...

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (5, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654966)

Yes, biased towards conforming with open international published standards, rather than to any specific vendor's implementation. It just happens the best of the best web browsers try to conform to the same standards, scoring much higher than Microsoft's offering which is deliberately designed to break from the standard to ensure lockin.

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655200)

His point is that the actual score of IE will be lower than the rest because the test was biased towards making more things in IE fail. Anything under 100 is failing, so just because IE gets a lower score than any other browser (that gets under 100) doesn't mean that IE is worse.

It's common knowledge that firefox is just as non-compliant as far as standards go as IE, even if slashtards won't admit it.

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655010)

Not quite. When none of the browsers are getting 100/100 and the only browser to get over a 60 is a safari beta, I think it's safe to say that it's a test designed so that every browser will fail. That's the point: they're giving solid targets to browser developers and giving a concise score to everyone else so that they know where the browsers stand in the next generation of web tech.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that complaining about it being designed so that IE would fail is like saying that American Gladiators was designed so that my 8 year old brother would fail. Sure, it has that effect in the end, but the fact that he's under-equipped for such a competition isn't American Gladiators' fault.

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (4, Funny)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655192)

Comment on your analogy:

I think the mere fact that American Gladiators is considered tv-worthy indicates that we, as a nation, have failed. Also, sorry about your brother. That was really brutal when they knocked him into the pool.

Just sayin'.

-G

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655268)

Right now, no browser can make it to 100 even if somebody had everything working. The servers appear to be falling over and timing out returning content.

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (2, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655360)

no browser can make it to 100 even if somebody had everything working
With an attitude like that I don't expect any browser to ever make it ;)

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (2, Informative)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655376)

Actually, trying to make IE fail it wasn't an aim: the aim was to include tests that one of Firefox, Safari, and Opera fails. If IE happens to fail them too, so be it.

Re:Of Course IE will fail, ACID test is biased... (2, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655598)

Actually, it's tests that one, or preferably more than one, of Firefox, Safari, Opera or IE fail.

Firefox 2.0.0.12 (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654898)

I get a 51/100 with firefox 2....wonder how 3 will do.

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654952)

3b3 gets a 61. Opera 9.5 is the best I tested at 65. Safarai 3.0.4 for Windows got a 39. IE7 got a 12 and also managed to mangle the page the most.

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (3, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655096)

Opera 9.5 is the best I tested at 65.
It better be good, since Håkon Wium Lie, Chief Technical Officer of Opera Software, worked together with Bert Bos to develop the CSS standard.

I'm not sure how many actually knows this. *shrug*

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655728)

3b3 I got 58.

Looking at the list of errors (click the "A" in Acid3 as mentioned by another comment. It seems that a handful are simple errors. I'd expect this number to rise quickly in the next few versions, but not expect perfection for a long while.

For the moment, good job to any browser that scored above a 50

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (1)

elFarto the 2nd (709099) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654954)

58/100 with Firefox 3 beta 3.

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654986)

I'm using 3.0b3, and got 58/100

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (5, Funny)

thornomad (1095985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655000)

Woo hoo! IE 6.0 displays this just fine: http://acid3.acidtests.org/reference.html [acidtests.org] Read 'em and weep Firefox!

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655324)

Okay, I'll admit it, I laughed.

(logged out cause it doesnt deserve mod points/etc)

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655022)

It depends on which build. 3.0b3 gets you 60/100. Supposedly the current beta 4 nightly builds do better.

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (1)

imess (805488) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655024)

58/100
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9b3) Gecko/2008020514 Firefox/3.0b3

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655600)

That's interesting. I wonder why the Linux build of Firefox 3 Beta 3 scores 61 while the Windows build scores 58.

Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655206)

Firefox 3 Beta 3 (Windows): 57/100

Failed 43 of 100 tests.
Test 0: expected: pre-wrap, got: normal - found unexpected computed style
Test 1: Component returned failure code: 0x80004001 (NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) [nsIDOMDocumentTraversal.createNodeIterator]
Test 2: Component returned failure code: 0x80004001 (NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) [nsIDOMDocumentTraversal.createNodeIterator]
Test 3: Component returned failure code: 0x80004001 (NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) [nsIDOMDocumentTraversal.createNodeIterator]
Test 4: Component returned failure code: 0x80004001 (NS_ERROR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED) [nsIDOMDocumentTraversal.createNodeIterator]
Test 7: Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsIDOMRange.cloneContents]
Test 9: expected: Hello Wonderful KittyHow are you?, got: - toString() on range selecting Document gave wrong output
Test 10: expected: result, got: - toString() didn't work for attribute node
Test 11: when inserting into Document with another child: wrong exception raised
Test 22: expected: 5, got: 14 - wrong exception for createElement('0div')
Test 23: expected: 5, got: 14 - wrong exception for createElementNS('null', '0div')
Test 26: e2 - parent element doesn't exist after looping
Test 27: e2 - parent element doesn't exist after waiting
Test 30: Component returned failure code: 0x80070057 (NS_ERROR_ILLEGAL_VALUE) [nsIDOMEventTarget.dispatchEvent]
Test 33: expected: 1, got: 0 - whitespace error in class processing
Test 35: expected: 0, got: 1 - :first-child still applies to element that was previously a first child
Test 36: expected: 0, got: 1 - :last-child matched element with a following sibling
Test 37: expected: 1, got: 0 - :only-child did not match only child
Test 38: expected: 0, got: 1 - adding children didn't stop the element matching :empty
Test 39: expected: 1, got: 0 - :nth-child(odd) failed with child 0
Test 40: expected: 1, got: 0 - part 1:0
Test 42: expected: 1, got: 0 - rule did not start matching after change
Test 46: expected: uppercase, got: none - case a failed (index 1)
Test 54: expected: HIDDEN, got: hidden - input control's type content attribute was wrong
Test 60: attribute not specified after removal
Test 61: expected: te st , got: te st - class attribute's value was wrong
Test 67: when calling removeNamedItemNS in a non existent attribute: no exception raised
Test 68: Unpaired surrogate handled wrongly (input was 'text', output was 'ext')
Test 70: UTF-8 encoded XML document with invalid character did not have a well-formedness error
Test 71: doc.open is not a function
Test 72: doc.images is undefined
Test 73: button.click is not a function
Test 74: getSVGDocument missing on element.
Test 75: anim.beginElement is not a function
Test 76: expected: 0, got: 100 - Incorrect animVal value after svg animation.
Test 77: expected: 4776, got: 2776 - getComputedTextLength failed.
Test 78: expected: 90, got: 0 - getRotationOfChar(0) failed.
Test 79: doc is undefined
Test 80: linktest onload didn't fire
Test 82: unexpected 1 in t3
Test 88: \u002b was not considered a parse error in script
Test 95: expected: string, got: number - type of |"2147483648"| is not string
Test 98: expected: Sparrow, got: - document.title did not update dynamically
Elapsed time: 1.12s

IE7 on Vista is epic fail. Doesn't even load the JS properly. Gets to 5/100 at best.

Firefox (0, Redundant)

grim4593 (947789) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654908)

I got a 50/100 at http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080207 Ubuntu/7.10 (gutsy) Firefox/2.0.0.12

Re:Firefox (2, Informative)

Cap'n.Brownbeard (1092507) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655064)

Same score for me using FF 2.0.0.12 on WinXP.

Link to test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654920)

http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]

Firefox gets a 50 for me. (And a FAIL in the corner)

Link to the actual test (4, Informative)

I kan Spl (614759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654930)

Why does slashdot keep linking to dead blogs?

The actual test is http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org] here.

Re:Link to the actual test (1)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655184)

Slashdot linked to a well known blog because they had screenshots of several major browsers to save the readers some time, or show results for those who don't have access to other browsers.

I visit drunkenfist quite often, and this is the first time they've been down. Somehow I think the two are related

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22654942)

If your browser locks up, is that a pass or fail?

Geek version of a measuring contest? (-1, Troll)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654944)

I've always wondered... isn't this the geek version of a measuring contest? Microsoft creates IE. Geeks create FireFox. Microsoft marketing says IE is better. Geeks create another piece of test software that says FireFox is better. When it comes right down to it... aren't both sides insisting they measure their digital dinkus with their own ruler and not the other guy's, just to show theirs is bigger?

(I know, I know, the analogy breaks down somewhat when you realize each ruler only works for one side... fine, they're special quantum rulers...)

Re:Geek version of a measuring contest? (4, Insightful)

gerbalblaste (882682) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655042)

No this is a measurement of compliance to international standards.

Re:Geek version of a measuring contest? (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655240)

CSS3 isn't an "international standard", it's a draft specification.

Re:Geek version of a measuring contest? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655798)

CSS3 isn't an "international standard", it's a draft specification
Very true, but not quite the killer point you probably intended it to be; Acid3 does test some of the more widely implemented CSS3 features, but it's primarily concerned with JavaScript and the DOM, not with CSS at all.

Re:Geek version of a measuring contest? (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655148)

No, it's measuring both dinki with the same ruler and saying "You must be this long to procreate" (not to scale).

Re:Geek version of a measuring contest? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655836)

It isn't Firefox vs. IE. It is IE vs. All other browsers that seem to be reasonably consistent with each other.

Nothing like including a link to the actual test.. (0, Redundant)

inotocracy (762166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654946)

.. http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]

I'd read TFA but... (4, Funny)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654982)

My browser won't render the page properly.

Latest Safari nightly scores... (5, Informative)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22654994)

90/100 [mothership.co.nz] .

Getting pretty close.

Re:Latest Safari nightly scores... (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655466)

Not bad. Unfortunately I couldn't get the webkit nightly to load the page, probably for unrelated reasons. The latest trunk build of Firefox gets 66, which is an improvement from 61 in Firefox 3 Beta 3.

Re:Latest Safari nightly scores... (1)

digitalcowboy (142658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655734)

I got it to load twice in the latest nightly of WebKit just now and scored 85/100 both times. That's pretty impressive, in my opinion and one of the reasons I use WebKit as my primary browser these days.

Unfortunately, the server is still timing out when I try to view the reference image.

Not to mention... (2, Informative)

rsborg (111459) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655544)

The latest webkit (Safari) nightly is just amazingly fast.

Faster than FF3 beta 4, much much faster than FF2 or IE7.

Failure (3, Insightful)

mrbah (844007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655030)

The Acid tests would be a lot more productive if they were oriented more towards the practical non-compliance issues than obscure ones. A back-asswards JavaScript implementation or a horrible box model is more of an issue than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup. Total compliance is great, but it's much more pragmatic to get the fundamental issues fixed first.

Re:Failure (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655490)

than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup

Trust me, that one could actually become fairly important, depending on how large the image could be. I've got scripts that produce reports where right now it takes several seconds of database grinding just to give me the table of data and then several seconds again when the browser hits the script in the <img> tag to get the graph, if I could calculate the table once and produce the graph at the same time and insert the graph into the HTML itself, it reduces the wait time to get the report.

Re:Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655726)

Can't just create a report results cache in /tmp/ with a ttl of 5 minutes-1 hour?

Re:Failure (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655770)

You can. Use the canvas tag.

Firefox 3 beta 3 (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655130)

57/100 :-( I really was expecting more.

Re:Firefox 3 beta 3 (2, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655282)

... and 64/100 for Firefox 3.0b5pre ("Minefield")

Re:Firefox 3 beta 3 (3, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655710)

Why? The test expressly picked things that one of Opera, Safari, and Firefox would fail, preferably more than one, and tried to balance the number of tests each would fail.

Put another way it looked really hard for things to test that would give browsers low scores.

There's nothing to say that the things it tests are necessarily useful. Some are, some are not.

Konqueror (5, Informative)

kevmatic (1133523) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655144)

I haven't seen anybody answer konqueror yet!

I tried it in Konqi 3.5.8 with Gentoo. It asked me what I wanted to do with "empty.txt" then segfaulted. Anyone fairing better?

Re:Konqueror (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655250)

That crash is fixed in 3.5.9 (which does 41)... 4.0.2 does 61, 4.1-pre 63. Early 4.0.x versions do less.

Re:Konqueror (1)

Prefader (1072814) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655322)

3.5.6 in Kubuntu 7.04 crashes after loading up the page. I don't get any questions about "empty.txt".

I don't know if I'd call that "fairing better", but at least it's different.

Re:Konqueror (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655812)

Little better. 3.5.8 gave 41/100 but didn't look at all like the reference and 3.5.9 had 51/100, but looked identical. I had to copy the score from behind a picture of a dog (?) to even see it. I got the 'empty.txt' question and answered to open it; it didn't but also didn't segfault.

FWIW: sidux 2.6.24.2 amd64, KDE 3.5.8 & 3.5.9, Qt 3.3.8b

Slashdoted (5, Funny)

fluch (126140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655204)

Conclusion: ACID3 test didn't pass Slashdot test. Too bad.

Re:Slashdoted (4, Funny)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655310)

It's ok here. I've even scripted 700 machines here to reload the page repeatedly just to ensure it isn't.

I tested a few browsers (1)

nxsty (942984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655220)

I tried the Acid 3 test in Firefox 2.0.0.12 , Firefox 3 (recent nightly build), IE7, Opera 9.26 and Safari 3 (windows beta). The best was Firefox 3 which almost rendered the page correctly. The worst was IE7 (as expected). Safari was probably a little bit better than Opera and Firefox 2 but it's hard to tell.

IE8 (1)

nxsty (942984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655418)

I just installed IE8 beta 1 and while it's better than IE7 it's still worse than the rest.

My results of Acid 3 test (1)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655264)

On Windows XP SP2, ACID 3 test results 57/100 for FireFox 3 Beta 3 I am guessing 17/100 on IE 8 Beta; it was very hard to see the top of the 1 and the 7, but the print preview should a 17 on it. Tim S

Firefox (4, Funny)

zulater (635326) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655344)

I got a 100/100 on the reference image.

Re:Firefox (5, Funny)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655422)

Hey, me too. Are you also using Netscape Navigator 4.01?

Thunderbird ;] (4, Funny)

Przemo-c (1010877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655434)

Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 with thunderbrowse scores 52/100 ;]

100% score on IE8 (4, Funny)

spacemky (236551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655480)

I got a 100% score rendering Acid3 on IE8! All I had to do was add the following line to the top of the page!

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=8" />

Once that meta tag is there, all web pages look just as they're supposed to! I'm so glad Microsoft finally fixed this whole compatibility fiasco.

Web 2.0? (3, Insightful)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655536)

Someone again try to explain to me the definition of web 2.0, and don't tell me flash.

I personally think it's the move of the entire web (the content that matters) to valid XHTML, CSS, etc (of course everything is controlled dynamically by PHP/Perl/whatever you want). I also hope there can be an open standard soon to do the same functionality that Youtube's Flash container that runs on everything and that everyone agrees upon. Silverlight is obviously closed and so is Flash. We need an open source mid-quality (and high-quality) video player that loads quickly and is OS-independent, just like Flash. I think that is all that is missing in this 'Web 2.0'.

Perhaps.... (0)

acvh (120205) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655554)

....there is a need for people who actually develop browser software to use this. but, of course, what it is really being used for is. "my favorite browser scored X", even when there are maybe six people here who know what's going on in the test. something tells me that there is little correlation between an Acid3 score and how well a browser displays a page.

On my first day of Tests and Measurements the prof asked, "What does an IQ test measure?"

The correct answer, of course, is "how good someone is at taking IQ tests."

Re:Perhaps.... (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655742)

Yes, there is almost no correlation between how well a browser does on Acid tests and how well it renders pages on the web. The purpose of the Acid tests is to break the chicken-and-egg problem of web development. The web developers tend not to use features unless all popular browsers support them. On the other hand, the developers of the web browsers tend not to add features that are not used by web developers. Without anyone willing to go first, the implementation and use of new web standards stalls.

The purpose of the Acid tests is to break this logjam by using these new standards in a very public way so that web developers will be motivated to implement them. The "my browser does better than your browser" posturing is a bit immature, but as a side effect it popularizes the faults of browsers and motivates the browser developers to fix them. Then, the web developers use the new features after they are well supported.

Re:Perhaps.... (2, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655746)

The ideal here actually is that if a reasonable number of mainstream browsers scored 100 on the test, web developers could use all of the features the test exercises and have a reasonable expectation that their page will display correctly for end users.

The test is about making life better for web developers, and about making the web more interoperable, instead of having sites which jump through browser predicated hoops, or restrict users to "IE7.0 or newer on 32-bit Windows" or the like. Thus having your favorite browser, and your least favorite browser score well is in the best interests of all web users.

Unfair browser bashing? (1)

Sebastian Reichelt (1241416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655638)

While I welcome tests for standards compatibility, such test scores are not really a solid ground for browser comparison. If they wanted an unbiased indicator, they would need to publish compliance tests before parts of the specification are implemented in browsers, not after the browsers have been released to the public. This way I strongly suspect they are actually testing against specific browser flaws, which means they can design the test so each browser achieves whatever score they want. I'm not saying the scores are wrong; I think they are simply not meaningful.

BTW, I think we would be better off if ECMAScript wasn't part of the "Web standards" at all. Most of the time, it is used in places where that is completely unnecessary. As a client-side scripting language, browser incompatibilities are no surprise. Some browsers don't support it, and some people would like to turn it off.

Consider this: Almost all websites are used to deliver text, images, and downloads (i.e., some sort of content), and some have forms for interaction. No browser seriously has a problem with any of that. They may not make the pages look the way they are supposed to, but that is secondary. On the other hand, websites that depend on client-side scripting are effectively hiding their content and making it available only to specific browsers. That's why ECMAScript is harmful to the web.

Re:Unfair browser bashing? (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655832)

You're exactly correct that the Acid tests test specific browser flaws. They are testing exactly the flaws that plague web developers. That way, when all popular browsers pass the Acid tests, web developers don't need to work around the flaws in each different browser. We all benefit by getting web sites with fancy new features that work in all browsers. The scores are not meaningful, but are a way to motivate the developers of web browsers to fix their flaws so they're not embarrassed by a low or non-passing score.

firefox 3b5 (0, Redundant)

narfman0 (979017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22655722)

...Gets a 66/100

I always wanted to know... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22655838)

If no browser actually pass the test, as of now, how did they render the reference image?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...