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!

IE 5.5 Beats IE6 and IE7 On Acid 3

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the acid-reflux dept.

Internet Explorer 308

Steven Noonan sends us to a page where he is collecting and updating results for various browsers on the newly released Acid 3 test. No browser yet scores 100 on this test. (We discussed Acid 3 when it came out.) He writes, "It's not surprising that Internet Explorer is losing to every other modern browser, but how did IE 5.5 beat IE 6.0 and 7.0?" All of the IE versions score below 20 on Acid 3.

cancel ×

308 comments

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

Read that too fast... (5, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696562)

IE6 and IE7 On Acid
IE's recreational drug use would explain a lot...

Re:Read that too fast... (0, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696580)

Acid? I'd have thought shrooms were more IE's style.

Re:Read that too fast... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696594)

Look, if he was alive today, (AND HE IS NOT) then Hitler and Nazis would have defintely loved IE8 and Vista.

Re:Read that too fast... (0, Offtopic)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696730)

I see them more as Ubuntu users because of all the brown, but you make an interesting point.

Re:Read that too fast... (3, Funny)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696860)

Sure, invoke Godwin's Law in the third comment, you insensitive clod!

Re:Read that too fast... (1, Funny)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696596)

IE6 and IE7 On Acid
IE's recreational drug use would explain a lot...

It would explain why developers for IE need drugs, as well.

And older firefox versions do better too (-1, Flamebait)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696742)

So I know most people here always give firefox a free pass (since it is FOSS and anti-Microsoft I'm sure), but IE isn't the only browser getting worse with time. If you actually look at those results, you can see that Firefox 3 is worse than Firefox 2. Makes you wonder if some good coders who initially architected both browsers (and really understood them) have left, leaving some less experienced coders doing the new work.

Re:And older firefox versions do better too (1, Informative)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696758)

Firefox 3 beta 3 is worse. The nightly build (the one that theoretically most resembles the finished product at this point) is third in the rankings. Right behind two other nightly builds.

Re:And older firefox versions do better too (5, Insightful)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696762)

a beta version having worse performance than a production version isn't exactly the same as an ancient, no longer supported version having better performance than the current production version.

Re:And older firefox versions do better too (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696800)

Actually, according to multiple [drunkenfist.com] sources [wikipedia.org] , Firefox 2.0.0.12 score 50%, lower than Firefox 3 builds. No, the quality of Firefox is not decreasing.

Re:And older firefox versions do better too (4, Informative)

klui (457783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697010)

Windows 2003: 2.0.0.12 = 51%; 3.0 beta 3 (portable version) = 58% here.

Re:And older firefox versions do better too (5, Informative)

neunon (1253568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697062)

I don't know how, but I messed up when making the table. I reconfirmed the results with the ones I had written down and realized the Firefox 2.0.0.12 Mac OS X entry was incorrect. I've corrected the error. The actual value is 52%. So 3.0b3 is actually doing better than the current release. Sorry about that error. - Steven

Re:Read that too fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22697082)

whatever, listen to the man, but computing wouldn't be where it is today without lsd.

Because (-1, Offtopic)

wirefarm (18470) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696578)

IE6 and IE7 are obviously on crack...

TheDailyWTF (0, Offtopic)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696584)

This really belongs on thedailywtf.com

Re:TheDailyWTF (0, Redundant)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696610)

OK, it's submitted.

Let me get this right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696598)

I was very happy with IE.

people tell me to use firefox because it follows web standards, but from this, it shows that none of the browsers actually follow web standards...

sorry, I know the answer - Just trying to be smart.

Re:Let me get this right... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696732)

People tell you to use firefox because it follows web standards *better*. (Acid 3 results: 58-69% for FF vs 11-17% for IE, so TFA confirms it.)

Very simple (2, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696614)

Microsoft doesn't WANT IE to be compatible. Have the most popular browser and have it not be compatible, and you force everyone to be compatible with YOU - and the competitors who are "standards" compatible are thereby not compatible with what most people was used to, etc.

If you can't own the internet, this is the next best thing.

Re:Very simple (2, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696840)

And they are bringing IE8 into compliance because...?

Re:Very simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696908)

Call me when it complies.

Hell, call me when they accomplish anything that plays well with others.

Microsoft promises stuff like that all the time, you're just too young to know to ignore them.

Re:Very simple (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697132)

The browser war was so over years ago. The only reason why IE7 is still standing is because corporate apps are forced to support it as M$ has far more corporate influence than mozilla org.

Re:Very simple (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696864)

Microsoft doesn't WANT IE to be compatible.

This might fit in well with Slashdot groupthink, but it doesn't fit in well with reality.

Back when Internet Explorer 6 was being developed, they were in direct competition with Netscape. Internet Explorer 6, when it was released was probably the best browser around when it came to supporting CSS. And you want us to believe that the explanation for 6 being worse than 5.5 in this test was deliberate sabotage by Microsoft?

They abandoned Internet Explorer development when they won the browser war. Sure, at that point you can make a case for them not wanting to be compatible. But at that point, they weren't developing Internet Explorer at all, so you can't use it as an explanation for Internet Explorer getting worse. And when Internet Explorer development was restarted, they were responding to a call for improved standards support,which they have delivered on.

I'm sorry, but deliberate sabotage is a ridiculous way of explaining this. Remember, the Acid tests are designed to trigger flaws in popular browsers. Of course it's going to target Internet Explorer 6 and 7 bugs over ancient versions. Internet Explorer 5.5 is no longer popular, so what's the point in ferreting out bugs for the Acid3 test? The real surprise is that people didn't expect this result.

Re:Very simple (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696956)

got your browsers a bit mixed up there. IE 5.5 was in direct competition, 6 was released after the war.

Re:Very simple (2, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697018)

When did the war actually end? I thought IE5 was the final nail in Netscape's coffin, which would make IE5.5 also after the war ended.

Re:Very simple (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697070)

I guess it depends on when you consider the war to have ended, but the important point is that Internet Explorer 6 was indeed a marked improvement in standards support over Internet Explorer 5.5, so it's silly to say that it deliberately does worse in a test written the best part of a decade later. If Microsoft were trying to do worse with Internet Explorer 6, then they failed.

Re:Very simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696980)

More likely IE 6 and 7 specifically targeted Acid 1 and 2. IE 5.5 is just better rounded on compliance, which paid off when given a test no one could specifically 'study' for.

IE8 Beta 1? (0, Troll)

Ai Olor-Wile (997427) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696622)

Why has there been no discussion on Slashdot of IE 8 beta 1?

Available here without any WGA crap. [microsoft.com]

(It gets 10/100, btw, and can't do Acid2 completely.)

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (-1, Troll)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696660)

For the same reason we don't discuss Windows ME...it's just too painful

JOKE!

Ok, semi-joke

. MS are actually dragging IE into this century, as far as browser standards go. It's a long, difficult journey, however...

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696676)

Why has there been no discussion on Slashdot of IE 8 beta 1?
Like, say, a front-page story [slashdot.org] from four days ago? :)

It even has your same link right in the summary...

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22697044)

Oooh, can we get some ice for that BURN?

</highschool>

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (5, Funny)

jsse (254124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696702)

Dear customer, We regret the shortcoming that you found regarding ACID 3 test results of IE8. Please note that it's still in its beta stage and we'll put all the efforts in making IE8 score below its proud precedences, IE5.5, 6 and 7, before its release! Stay tune. We've never failed before, we won't fail this time. Yours truly, Department of Embracing Standards and Compatibilities, Microsoft.

Three months later (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696804)

Dear Customer,

We regret to hear of the shortcoming you found in ACID 3 Test Home Basic. We have not forgotten our advertised promise to pass the test. On that note, we are proud to introduce the ACID 3 Test Pro! IE8 happily passes this version of ACID 3, which is comprised of VBScript, ActiveX, and Silverlight technologies.

Yours Truly,
Department of Extending Standards and Compatibilities
Microsoft

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696710)

[IE8] can't do Acid2 completely.


Yes it can. I just checked.

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696960)

[IE8] can't do Acid2 completely.
Yes it can. I just checked.
There's a problem when you run the Acid2 test in IE8 Beta 1 from a website other than www.webstandards.org [msdn.com] . Ian Hickson, who developed the Acid2 test, apparently says that IE8 Beta 1 fails Acid2 because of this flaw.

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (5, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697032)

It is a problem, but it's not the hard-coding people seem to think it is. The problem is not that Internet Explorer 8 is checking for www.webstandards.org, the problem is that the mirrors that are failing are changing the test in a way that is important to Internet Explorer. Part of the test refers to a page that intentionally doesn't exist in order to check a fallback option. The trouble is that this page is referred to with an absolute URL, which means that when you simply copy the test to another host, it becomes a cross-domain issue.

Ian's pointing out that it's still a failure so it should be subject to the same fallback, which is correct, but the important point is that it's failing to load in a different way to how it would on the www.webstandards.org host because the mirrors didn't take the cross-domain issue into account. I expect the final version of Internet Explorer 8 to correct this problem, but it's not at all a case of Microsoft attempting to "cheat", just an unfortunate coincidence.

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (1)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696976)

[IE8] can't do Acid2 completely.
Yes it can. I just checked.
Why is this modded down to -1? I'm running IE8b1 right now and yes, it runs Acid2 completely. In fact, it does it better than the currently released 2.x version of Firefox. Perhaps the moderators are still on the outdated information that IE8 requires the meta tag for Standards Mode? Microsoft changed their tune on this so now IE8b1 is in standards mode by default. If you still don't think IE8 passes Acid2 then explain why.

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697074)

Why is this modded down to -1? I'm running IE8b1 right now and yes, it runs Acid2 completely.

It was probably modded down because we've already had this discussion in three different articles over the last week. IE8 beta passes the Acid 2 test only when run on webstandards.org, but fails if you run it on almost any mirror. The discussion further continued with speculation that MS had hardcoded a workaround specifically for the test and was "cheating". This turned out to be untrue and the reason was that webstandards.org references a page that exists incorrectly but the mirrors reference a page that doesn't exist. Both cases should be handled, but IE8 beta fails on the latter.

Probably people were modding the post down because it was factually incorrect. A better way to deal with the problem is probably to post a factual response, but several people have done so and those posts have not been modded high enough so that the facts are more easily read than the misleading evidence presented in the post you are asking about. Either that or a dozen people with mod points just groaned and thought, "do we have to go through all this again?"

Re:IE8 Beta 1? (0, Troll)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696834)

Why has there been no discussion on Slashdot of IE 8 beta 1?

Might be because most who have tried IE 7, don't take IE 8 seriously and have switched to Firefox.

Not a joke either. Some people at work are using Vista with IE 7. The site fails, we tell them to use Firefox and it authenticates them and works well. Problem solved.

Thinking about scraping Vista myself, even though Firefox and Open Office works, too many quirks with it. Took me 3 hours to hack it to work with Samba.

It is true though, Vista is more secure out of the box, because nothing works.

IE 5.5 Beats 6 and 7 (0, Troll)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696634)

I guess it just goes to show you that two wrongs do make a right. IE's abilities to render a web page reliably go so far into the realm of incompetence that they've gone straight through and come out the other side.

Celik Strikes Back (0)

richdun (672214) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696640)

That "C" should be the one with the little squiggly on the bottom. I'm sure I can find it in my character map, but don't want those without a Unicode compliant browser to see some Chinese character or something... since we are talking the various iterations of IE here.

IIRC, and someone with a better degree in Web History can probably elaborate, but wasn't IE 5.5 written with code which came over from IE5 for Mac, the first really well done major browser with nice CSS support? Tantek Celik was lead (or close to lead) on that, and set the pace for good CSS compliance... which MS dumped when building IE6 for Win, because they could have their flagship internet browser rendering better on those other guy's OS and not their own.

HELLO 1962. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696806)

That "C" should be the one with the little squiggly on the bottom.

Ç.

I'm sure I can find it in my character map,

Option-C.

but don't want those without a Unicode compliant browser to see some Chinese character or something... since we are talking the various iterations of IE here.

It's one of the most common non-ASCII letters, since it's also in French, and has been a required entity since at least HTML 1.0.

Tantek Celik was lead (or close to lead) on that,

If you're going to insist on being teletype-compatible, you may as well go whole hog and say "Chelik". Non-Turkish-speakers will have a chance of pronouncing it correctly, and Turkish speakers will know what it means (because Turkish has no digraphs and "Ch" makes no sense).

Re:Celik Strikes Back (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696904)

wasn't IE 5.5 written with code which came over from IE5 for Mac, the first really well done major browser with nice CSS support?

No, it wasn't. Internet Explorer 5.x for Windows uses the Trident rendering engine. Internet Explorer 5.x for the Mac uses the Tasman rendering engine. They are totally different codebases.

which MS dumped when building IE6 for Win, because they could have their flagship internet browser rendering better on those other guy's OS and not their own.

Actually, in most ways, Internet Explorer 6 has better standards support than Internet Explorer 5.x for the Mac.

Uhhh (4, Insightful)

Hassman (320786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696642)

No one else finds it odd that only a few browsers scored over 60%... What good is a standard that no one adheres to?

Makes it seem more like a suggestion...

Re:Uhhh (-1)

Ai Olor-Wile (997427) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696648)

You... must be new here.

Re:Uhhh (4, Interesting)

Hassman (320786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696684)

hah. not really.

I just find it very amusing. We have 'standard' that no one really follows. When the best score is a 90% from a browser that probably is the lest supported in terms of actual web sites, and the next couple that come it are at 70% or so. That is like a C- with no curve. Not exactly worthy of bragging...

It just makes me wonder what all the fuss is about.

Re:Uhhh (1)

Gyga (873992) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696704)

What schools do you go to? A 70% is a D- a 69 is an F. A 90 is a B. No one is doing good. BLAME THE TEACHER ... I mean standard.

Re:Uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696918)

This is how it worked where I went to school: A: 100-90% B: 89-80% C: 79-70% D: 69-60% F: 59% and lower

No chidrenz lef behinded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22697058)

59% or lower = A
0% = B = PASS

Re:Uhhh (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696672)

It's designed so that no browser as 100% because they ALL have work to do in complying with the latest standards out there for web development. Specifically however, the Acid tests are a bitch because they test purposefully incorrectly written code and expect a certain "defined" result. Then again, standards are standards.

Re:Uhhh (3, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696686)

The Acid tests are, to put it kindly, perverse. They basically try to hit every corner case of the standards in the most convoluted way possible. I'm not saying 60% is adequate, but it's understandable for a browser that's under development.

Re:Uhhh (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696714)

Wow, I got scored as a troll? That's a first. Come on, guys, I meant it as humor, tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. Note the title of my comment; I was referring to IE 5.5 *specifically* as getting things right by dint of its crappiness. I'm sorry, but it's a well-documented fact that it has a horrible render engine chock-full of bugs. As a web developer, I've earned the right to say that the browser has its problems.

I have to say that 7.0 is a lot easier to code for and seems to actually be respecting my CSS. Of course, I still have to go back and tweak things to work under 6.0, because it fails to render the page correctly.

Anyway, I also know what the Acid test is for, and that it represents everything you can get wrong in web page coding. It's a measure of how well a render engine can stand up to the worst conditions, not how well it can deal with properly written code.

Re:Uhhh (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696798)

Methinks you hit the wrong "Reply To" button...

Re:Uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696988)

That or he uses multiple accounts, and he really is a troll.

Re:Uhhh (4, Informative)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696698)

You're confusing intent with result.

The difference is that the teams working on Safari, Opera, Firefox, et al want to improve their product. Microsoft didn't care for a very long time. In fact, the Safari team even have a bug filed for the rendering issues Safari has with Acid3 [webkit.org] . Further, they're communicating frequently with their user base and anyone else interested with regard to their progress [webkit.org] .

Re:Uhhh (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696736)

On Slashdot, you keep hearing about "This is the standard!!!", but the W3C and other such entities do not make standards. They propose standards. Then the market decides if it wants it or not. Since a lot of bodies don't have the time or manpower to make anything better (and even if they could, it would be quite a waste of time and money), they take what the W3C spits out and implement it. As good a spec as any. And -then- it becomes the standard. Stuff like Acid Test helps meet that goal.

That being said, as time went on, the W3C really started spitting out real crap, so I'm not sure that its such a good goal to have... As opposed to standards like WS-I, which represents the real world and really do help on a day to day basis.

Re:Uhhh (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696984)

Since a lot of bodies don't have the time or manpower to make anything better (and even if they could, it would be quite a waste of time and money), they take what the W3C spits out and implement it.

That's not really true. Browser vendors participate in the W3C working groups that publish these specifications. They have an active role in creating them. Take a look at the acknowledgment section of the CSS 2 specification [w3.org] , for example.

This specification is the product of the W3C Working Group on Cascading Style Sheets and Formatting Properties. In addition to the editors of this specification, the members of the Working Group are: Brad Chase (Bitstream), Chris Wilson (Microsoft), Daniel Glazman (Electricité de France), Dave Raggett (W3C/HP), Ed Tecot (Microsoft), Jared Sorensen (Novell), Lauren Wood (SoftQuad), Laurie Anna Kaplan (Microsoft), Mike Wexler (Adobe), Murray Maloney (Grif), Powell Smith (IBM), Robert Stevahn (HP), Steve Byrne (JavaSoft), Steven Pemberton (CWI), Thom Phillabaum (Netscape), Douglas Rand (Silicon Graphics), Robert Pernett (Lotus), Dwayne Dicks (SoftQuad), and Sho Kuwamoto (Macromedia). We thank them for their continued efforts.

A number of invited experts to the Working Group have contributed: George Kersher, Glenn Rippel (Bitstream), Jeff Veen (HotWired), Markku T. Hakkinen (The Productivity Works), Martin Dürst (W3C, formerly Universität Zürich), Roy Platon (RAL), Todd Fahrner (Verso), Tim Boland (NIST), Eric Meyer (Case Western Reserve University), and Vincent Quint (W3C).

The section on Web Fonts was strongly shaped by Brad Chase (Bitstream) David Meltzer (Microsoft Typography) and Steve Zilles (Adobe). The following people have also contributed in various ways to the section pertaining to fonts: Alex Beamon (Apple), Ashok Saxena (Adobe), Ben Bauermeister (HP), Dave Raggett (W3C/HP), David Opstad (Apple), David Goldsmith (Apple), Ed Tecot (Microsoft), Erik van Blokland (LettError), François Yergeau (Alis), Gavin Nicol (Inso), Herbert van Zijl (Elsevier), Liam Quin, Misha Wolf (Reuters), Paul Haeberli (SGI), and the late Phil Karlton (Netscape).

The section on Paged Media was in large parts authored by Robert Stevahn (HP) and Stephen Waters (Microsoft).

Robert Stevahn (HP), Scott Furman (Netscape), and Scott Isaacs (Microsoft) were key contributors to CSS Positioning.

And of course, one of the four editors of the specification is Håkon Wium Lie, CTO of Opera.

So you see, far from the poor old browser vendors not having the resources to make anything better and passively reacting to anything the W3C says, you can see that the browser vendors are substantially the people who made the specifications.

Re:Uhhh (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697114)

A big group of people who disagree with each other. Its like if they werent participating, because the result will be a big soup of everyone's idea... so the entity may as well be separate. (Its a big complain about the W3C from its own members, thus why you see things like HTML5 pop up)

Re:Uhhh (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697016)

But, the markets haven't been creating standards. If the markets were creating them, then there'd be consistency. The fact that IE alone can't be reliably render pages that use current technology is a pretty good indication that the markets haven't been creating standards.

Hence why people are willing to push for the w3c recommendations, at least those are easily read and understood. And why better browsers aim towards complying with the recommendations rather than each other.

Market based solutions for technological problems rarely work out in a way that is desirable, or even predictable.

Re:Uhhh (3, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696754)

Not really. I often hear/read of browsers degrading compliance for the sake of rendering what would otherwise work only in IE.

Re:Uhhh (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696878)

Yes, because they should implement it first and write the design documents later like in the lesser known waterclimb method. Eventually you get to the requirements phase, where you tell the customer what's required of him to use the product. This also saves the overhead of the verification phase, because clearly whatever the code does is what it was meant to do and only the documentation can be imperfect. By the time you've reached the maintenance phase, you have hopefully been promoted and can blame it all on your less gifted successor. What's disturbing is that I suspect this method is actually in widespread use.

Re:Uhhh (4, Insightful)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696958)

You're right, they aren't standards. Go to any one of the W3's "standards" documents and you'll see they are all called "Recommendations", HTML 4.01 [w3.org] , for example. The cool kids call them "RECs".

Now, what good is a recommendation, you ask? Plenty - mostly interoperability. The W3C provides a specification and recommends people implement it. Those that do can interoprate. The consumer wins.

How do you get the vendors to implement the RECs? Make it an important bullet point on their feature lists. The Acid tests are a particularly well done kick in the backside for browser vendors. They have effectively become more important than the bullet point that says "standards compliant" because they are a (limited) test suite. For vendors to be able to say they do well in the tests, certain key parts of the RECs must be implemented and done so correctly, there is no room for buggy or partial implementation.

The result in the end is better interoperability. The RECs provide that common basis that vendors can't quibble over. The Acid tests are both the carrot to get them implementing the RECs and proof that they did so (partially) correctly.

/Mike

So if I understand you correct.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696992)

you are a cool kid? :)

Re:So if I understand you correct.. (1)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697022)

Nah, I just to sound like one. :)

Re:So if I understand you correct.. (1)

quonsar (61695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697160)

re: your sig that would be "et al"

Re:Uhhh (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697046)

Who is this "no one" guy?

It is a new test for a reason, you know?

I am a little annoyed by the fact it looks like in order for your browser to be standard compliant you now need to enable javascript...

Re:Uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22697138)

A test deliberately designed to break things that don't currently work in browsers in causing them to fail shock.

Which version of ACID test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696650)

The acid test website [acidtests.org] notes that the test may change over time as until it is debugged. Surely the page of collected results needs to record which version of the ACID3 test was used for each test, or at least the date on which each result was obtained?

When you thought you could make ends meet... (1)

f2x (1168695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696654)

Somebody moves the ends. IE 5 might just be passing it on a fluke. It's not as if it renders the Acid 2 smiley face better than 6 or 7. That said, either I'm not getting it, or the people setting up the acid tests aren't getting it- If no one is passing the "test" then the whole point of the test is moot. You might as well ask a politician for their detailed exit strategy in the war on terror. It's like granting a patent on something that never existed. It's what happens when you have standardized achievement tests in schools and teachers only teach to the test, while churning out students who lack critical thinking skills.

It's looking less like the browsers aren't really failing so much as the goals keep shifting.

Re:When you thought you could make ends meet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696696)

Huh. Acid2 hasn't changed for years. They're still trying to figure out what they want to test with Acid3, and how to make an objective test for it. Yes, this means revising it.

Also note, the Acid tests test standards compliance, in addition to error handling. Even if the "goals keep shifting", they're shifting towards the W3C CSS rendering spec, a perfectly objective document (and a correctly implemented browser would pass Acid2 and 3 by default).

Re:When you thought you could make ends meet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696898)

Huh. Acid2 hasn't changed for years.


Exactly my point. Those who write browser programs just begrudgingly made their application render the webpage correctly. As long as the broken CSS looked OK, then the browser was OK.

They're still trying to figure out what they want to test with Acid3, and how to make an objective test for it. Yes, this means revising it.


And that's what's wrong with it.

Also note, the Acid tests test standards compliance, in addition to error handling. Even if the "goals keep shifting", they're shifting towards the W3C CSS rendering spec, a perfectly objective document (and a correctly implemented browser would pass Acid2 and 3 by default).


And yet NO ONE passes acid 3! HELLO! NO ONE IS LISTENING TO W3C! They're just some crazy old man in the corner that keeps muttering about getting 40 rods to the hogshead!

Things change.

Yes, you don't get it. (5, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696838)

I would have to say that it is that you don't get it. No one is so arrogant as to think that they can sit down and design the perfect web. As with virtually all of human achievement, we expect that there will be continual advancement, and hopefully we will never hit a wall. The Acid tests are road marks on the advancement of web browsers. The Acid tests are for the purpose of seeing just how compatible the browsers are. Scores of 0% and 100% are both useless. So, you make a test that is not so hard that no one can get even 1%, and that are not so easy that everyone gets 100%.

Well, the browsers are getting to that 100% point. Acid2 was not built to check 100% compliance, at that would have been useless. Not that the main browsers are reaching 100%, Acid2 is becoming useless, and Acid3 is necessary to see who has the best compliance. To use your school analogy, consider Acid2 to be the second grade. It is important to achieve that level, but when you do, you can expect the 3rd grade to follow it.

(And if your opinion of public schools is as low as mine, you are welcome to substitute "second grade" with level of knowledge that a 7 year old should have.

Re:When you thought you could make ends meet... (1)

erlehmann (1045500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696948)

If no one is passing the "test" then the whole point of the test is moot.

You are the one who doesn't get it. The point of the test is to expose rendering bugs in common, but incomplete implementations of web standards. The tests even fail validation to test if browsers deal with faulty code in the correct way.

An ACID test is something like a common goal. While passing it does not proove that a spec has been fully implemented, it gives you a rough idea of how good a browser is regarding web standards.

Microsoft undermines standards - news at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696658)

Tomorrow, we cover the sun and how it rises. Every day.

Well unfortunately... (-1, Redundant)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696664)

not in Soviet Russia...

color me yawning (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696708)

hmm. so 10% of the browsers do better on a given test. meanwhile, 90% of the browsers are used to view 99.999% of the world's web pages. but here at slashdot, we need to crank up the sanctimony and wag our finger.

lame. there is an abstract notion of 'standards compliant' and then there is something I like to call the 'de-facto standard'. guess which side of this dichotomy you stupid fuckers have failed with?

In other news (1)

eggfoolr (999317) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696722)

Acid 3 fails the IE test getting a best score of 17%.

Get with the program guys.... M$ discovered the Internet. It's theirs to stick their flag on wherever they like!

(Bloody natives getting restless again)

Summary answers its own question (4, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696734)

They ALL score less than 20. That's essentially random response to the test - so it's just a matter of luck if one scores better than another.

        Brett

Old Web Browser Standards (4, Insightful)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696740)

To put it all into perspective how bad IE 8.0 is when it comes to web standards I tested a two year old install of Konqueror (KDE 3.4) and it gets a score of 51%. The best IE 8.0 can do is 17%.

Re:Old Web Browser Standards (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696832)

Well isn't IE8 the first release in which MS actually slightly cares about W3C?

Re:Old Web Browser Standards (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696882)

I don't think that release has arrived yet.

Re:Old Web Browser Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22696842)

A browser either passes or fails the ACID3 test. At the moment, every browser fails. There's no browser (released in the past or otherwise) that supports web standards better than IE8. Absolutely none.

Re:Old Web Browser Standards (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697170)

Your last name would'nt happen be "Knight" and your first being "Black" ?

More info can be found here [wikipedia.org] and a short video here [youtube.com] if you find reading a challenge so you can clearly understand why we are laughing at your comment

They did something right... (1)

Aegis Runestone (1248876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696766)

In the days of 5.5:
"Internet Explorer isn't crappy enough! We need to make it worse!"
Thus, IE 6 and IE 7 were born.

"el", oh "el"! (1)

n3v (412497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696796)

lol

yup!

safari (4, Interesting)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696820)

really seems to be kicking ass at 90%; granted it is from a nightly build and not an official release.

Still, Safari seems to have been ahead of the game on standards and features for a while. Weren't they the first ones to pass acid2? Also, they were the first to implement various extensions to HTML which have become prevalent, such as the CANVAS tag, which was later added to firefox and others.

Now, there's a version of safari for windows that I've been meaning to try, but it seems to still be in public beta, and has been there for quite a while. My question for anyone in the know, is whether the safari windows build is still progressing.

Re:safari (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696912)

Safari development builds are doing well on Acid3, and Safari passed Acid2 quickly, because Safari developers fixed the problems that the Acid tests demonstrate. If you look at the stable release builds of Safari, they do far worse than the stable release builds of Opera and Firefox. But if you look at the latest development builds, Safari does far better than Opera and Firefox. Safari is doing well on Acid tests because the developers put a lot of effort into making Safari do well on Acid tests, not because Safari is "ahead of the game" on standards.

There's far too much bickering about which browser is best and which browser is behind the curve. It seems that Safari, Opera, and Firefox are all very good browsers each with their own strengths in standards compliance and user interface, with IE constantly playing catch-up.

Re:safari (3, Informative)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696944)

I would like to point out that Safari's HTML renderer, Webkit, is indeed open source.

Simple answers for simple questions (1)

Pr0xY (526811) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696844)

the answer is simple, the value given does not directly equate to a percentage of conformance, it just means it screwed up earlier or later...but does not indicate how much it screwed up by (or more importantly what ELSE would screw up). So i would imagine that IE 5.5 probably has does some things simply "differently" from the later versions that make it fail at a different time, but that doesn't mean it failed less badly.

proxy

Re:Simple answers for simple questions (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696930)

The 100 subtests are nearly independent of each other. It's possible for a browser to fail a subtest simply because it failed an earlier subtest, but failing one subtest is not going to make a browser skip a major portion of the test. You can click on the A in Acid3 after the test is completed to see a report of exactly which tests failed.

Maybe this is obvious but... (5, Interesting)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696888)

If there doesn't exist a program that can render your test correctly, then how do you know for sure you wrote it correctly to begin with?

Re:Maybe this is obvious but... (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696974)

You don't. On the other hand, if there is a flaw in Acid3, it will be found as the developers of web browsers attempt to pass it. Safari developers found a flaw in Acid2.

IE5 (1)

rubah (1197475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22696954)

I wonder why they didn't test IE5mac :]

You shouldn't be supporting standards (-1)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697028)

A lot of you guys are sitting on the wrong side of the fence. Standards are definitely better for consumers. It makes things cheaper, easier, and over-all faster. But many of you seem to forget that you aren't just consumers -- you're employees too.

I run an internet application programming business. I don't want standards. Browser standards will make it really easy for anyone to create a web-page semi-well. Right now, my efforts are spent on the high-tech skills of managing a high-tech industry. If things become too easy, my skills will switch to competitive sales. That's good for the consumer who doesn't care about excess quality, sure. But it's just plain aweful for my employees. I'll pay them less, I'll outsource more.

Today, third-world cheap labour for metal and plastic and paper trumps any local labour. Do you want tech jobs to go the same way?

If your pay-scale is below average, then yeah, you want products to become as cheap as possible -- even at the expense of your own wages; with an obvious boundary flaw of course. But if your pay-scale is above average, as is mine and as are my employees, then you don't want products to become cheaper, you want things to become more expensive because your wages will grow faster than those costs.

You can't ask "where are all the tech jobs" and then "where are all the tech workers" and then "where are all the cheap tech products". Our culture doesn't work that way.

My vote goes for more complex browser programming. I've got the skills to dodge all the problems. I've got facilities, people, and high-powered servers under my control -- and a whole lot of experience. If every browser had a different syntax and different features, it's not hard to program. As it is, between language translations, print layouts, user preferences, and restricted access, I'm already supporting some twenty combinations. Two hundred isn't any more work.

But if it's complex and frustrating to do, then I don't have to worry about my 12 year-old self competing with me.

It our culture of capitalism and democracy, I'll cast my vote in the direction that makes my professional life profitable -- and I'll support my friends, family, employees, contractors, and clients in doing so. I'll produce high-quality products and services, I'll stand behind them, and I won't worry about competition.

Next time you can't find a job, or a product of any decent quality, remember how you cast your vote.

Re:You shouldn't be supporting standards (4, Insightful)

LanceUppercut (766964) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697118)

Sorry, but this is just plain nonsense. It is like saying that C and C++ standards made programming easy. However, the truth is that even if you teach the whole world all the intricacies of C or C++, it still won't turn everybody into programmers.

Still not enough old browsers! (0)

Tycho (11893) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697096)

I think that more systems should be tested. Try IE 5.5 on a copy of WinME, if someone tries this, IE might crash, several times. Or perhaps IE 5.5 on MacOS 9 and MacOS X? The Newton MP 2000 has a web browser too. Then there are all those old versions of Netscape Navigator stretching back to 1994. What about lynx, how well does it render Acid3?

Standard too hard to meet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22697098)

I don't understand why we need a web standard which is so complex that no browser can comply with it.

Okay, ACID is designed to find browser bugs. But I think my point remains valid; if the web standards had been a bit better designed (or perhaps merely a bit simpler), then the bugs would be less numerous and it would be easier to write a compliant HTML document.

By 2%? Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22697150)

zzzz

regressing (1)

agendi (684385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22697158)

The world has gotten so used to expecting so little from the internet (and MS browsers in particular) that the standards are regressing to match. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate (that ie 5.5 was ahead of it's time).
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>