Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:03 UTC
Internet & Networking Every now and then, you get these news item that make you feel like something's wrong. The item doesn't make sense, shouldn't be possible, and yet it is. Despite Microsoft's newfound commitment to web standards, it's still incredibly unnerving to see things like this - the W3C's first HTML5 compliance test, in which Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 6 outdoes all other browsers.
Order by: Score:
Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:20 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

Has anyone else noticed that IE9 gains a 28.57% lead over Firefox 4 for "video" and a 57.14% lead over Chrome for "xhtml5".

The first makes me wonder if someone slipped H.264 support into that test suite and the latter makes me think "Chrome devs will probably spend the next week or two fixing XML-specific things like namespace support and then shoot up to near 100%".

As for IE9's lead on "canvas", it's probably just that Chrome and Firefox are still catching up to IE9 on the GPU acceleration side of things and, as a result, they've got more bugs to squash.

I notice both Chrome and Firefox betas beat IE9 pretty soundly on getElementsByClassName.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:34 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10
RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm no expert obviously, but that email really doesn't explain what's wrong with the test. It just says "Opera's results are bogus" - but doesn't say why, what, or how. I'm not saying he's wrong - just that I'd like to know why.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ie9_outperforms_other_browsers...

It’s only just over 200 tests and is practically worthless at the moment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10
RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by libray on Fri 5th Nov 2010 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

I'd like to see how Opera on Linux and FreeBSD does. It's a totally different product with a lessened release quality. At least with Firefox, what you get in Windows is near what you get in Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by feld on Sun 7th Nov 2010 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
feld Member since:
2009-09-11

I don't see Opera on Linux and FreeBSD being very different than the Windows version. The main problems for a while were font quality -- otherwise they're pretty much identical....

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by CaptainN- on Thu 4th Nov 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

It's also based on IE9 preview - which unless things have changed, MS has said will contain features that don't make it into the final shipping IE9 product. They get a lot of positive buzz this way, but in the end, we won't get a compliant browser.

I'll stick with Flash thanks. :-P

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Malakim
by Malakim on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:42 UTC
Malakim
Member since:
2007-04-03

Wired has a little writeup on this subject, as well as some results from another test suite. Let's just say it's not looking quite as good there.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/ie9-leads-pack-in-html5-supp...

Anyway, it's a step forward compared to the old IE versions and that can't be bad. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Malakim
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by Malakim"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That article is a bit disingenuous. They complain about CSS3 not being included, but... CSS is not HTML.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2010/10/how_to_add_even...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Malakim
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Malakim"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I understand CSS != HTML; but we really lack an all encompassing name for all of the stuff you can render in a browser. The result is people just say HTML when they mean HTML + CSS + javascript + SVG, ect.

Any suggestions for to describe the collection of open standards that ( should) make up the modern web?

I suggest "Corn". Corn being short of Unicorn, and a staple food of millions.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Malakim
by nt_jerkface on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Malakim"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

That article gives the impression that CSS 3 is part of HTML5.

The author could have pointed out CSS 3 limitations without being misleading.

It really seems as if some people are upset by the result. Why am I not surprised that a Wired author put a negative slant on this. The dig at Silverlight was real classy as well.

Wired sucks, they seem stuck in 1999.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Malakim
by 1c3d0g on Sat 6th Nov 2010 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Malakim"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Hey now! 1999 was a great year!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Malakim
by Lennie on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 15:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Malakim"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The problem is, if IE9 is the next IE6 then it will just hold back development.

Reply Score: 3

Opera is not dev version
by harcalion on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 20:46 UTC
harcalion
Member since:
2005-07-12

Opera 10.60 is not dev version. In fact is an old stable version, since the current is 10.63.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Opera is not dev version
by Kochise on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 07:22 UTC in reply to "Opera is not dev version"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Opera 10.70 beta is out, why haven't they used this version to be par with preview 6 ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

HTML5
by Almafeta on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 21:09 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

So IE9 is the best implementation of HTML 5 out there?

Huh. Guess HTML 5 just looks terrible by design.

Reply Score: 2

RE: HTML5
by Nelson on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 21:17 UTC in reply to "HTML5"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I've never seen anyone be so content with mediocrity as people are with HTML5.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: HTML5
by lucas_maximus on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML5"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Obviously not a web developer then are you?

I was constantly saying with XHTML 1.0 & 1.1

"Nice if there was a semantic element for NAV",

"Nice if there was a semantic element for a Header and a Footer"

etc. etc. you get the picture.

Really nice extra semantic markup which I wish was there to describe what I normally included in a page and wanted it described in the markup. I want a nice clean separation of concerns between markup and styling.

HTML 5 and CSS 3.0 will deliver what I been wanting to do for a long time and will let me create cleaner markup and a better separation between the semantic elements and its styling.

I only wish it came sooner.

Edited 2010-11-02 23:27 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: HTML5
by nt_jerkface on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HTML5"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

HTML 5 and CSS 3.0 will deliver what I been wanting to do for a long time and will let me create cleaner markup and a better separation between the semantic elements and its styling.

I only wish it came sooner.


Yea but thanks to XP/IE8 holdouts it makes sense for commercial sites to stick with HTML 4. We're just now getting to the point where mainstream websites can drop IE6 support.

HTML5 is going to be mostly a toy technology for the next few years.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: HTML5
by kaiwai on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML5"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I hardly call them Windows XP hold outs given that there are netbooks still being sold today through retail channels that still have Windows XP pre-installed. Until Microsoft/OEM"s do something about this massive backlog of Windows XP machines being sold you're going to see the scourge of Windows XP and Internet Explorer 8 hang around for quite some time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: HTML5
by nt_jerkface on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HTML5"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I hardly call them Windows XP hold outs given that there are netbooks still being sold today through retail channels that still have Windows XP pre-installed.

I would since the majority bought their machines before Vista.


Until Microsoft/OEM"s do something about this massive backlog of Windows XP machines being sold you're going to see the scourge of Windows XP and Internet Explorer 8 hang around for quite some time.

MS should offer a flat $50 upgrade fee.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: HTML5
by lemur2 on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML5"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"HTML 5 and CSS 3.0 will deliver what I been wanting to do for a long time and will let me create cleaner markup and a better separation between the semantic elements and its styling. I only wish it came sooner.
Yea but thanks to XP/IE8 holdouts it makes sense for commercial sites to stick with HTML 4. We're just now getting to the point where mainstream websites can drop IE6 support. HTML5 is going to be mostly a toy technology for the next few years. "

Well, according to recent statistics, all versions of IE fell below 50%.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/internet_explorer_drops_below_...

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17106/take_that_microsoft_ie_drops_b...

XP has 60% of the market, and if a person is using IE then it is most probable that the machine is running Windows. So probably only 50% of the users on XP also are using IE now ... so 30% altogether are using IE on XP right now.

When IE9 comes in, it is such an improvement that a good percentage of Vista and Win 7 users will upgrade to it. This leaves the previously-identified 30% of users as the only group who might still be staying with IE6/IE7/IE8. 70% of users will be able to render HTML5.

OK, so that is a small enough market that some websites might begin to ignore it. Certainly there were websites which ignored compliant browsers (Firefox+Chrome) when they only had 30% of the market.

So if the web starts to shift to HTML5, those 30% IE6/IE7/IE8 users left out will be told that they can still see HTML5 pages if they: (a) move to Firefox, or (b) move to Google Chrome, or (c) install a plugin for Gogle Chrome Frame.

Option (c) might even be desirable for users who want to stay with IE6.

So it might be possible to change the rich web content away from HTML4 over to HTML5 despite the older-Windows holdouts.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: HTML5
by nt_jerkface on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HTML5"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


OK, so that is a small enough market that some websites might begin to ignore it. Certainly there were websites which ignored compliant browsers (Firefox+Chrome) when they only had 30% of the market.

It's not even close for commercial sites to ignore. Jimsjerky.com is not going to turn away 30% of visitors just to have a flashy website.


So it might be possible to change the rich web content away from HTML4 over to HTML5 despite the older-Windows holdouts.


Most websites will just use HTML4 + Flash for multimedia.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: HTML5
by lemur2 on Thu 4th Nov 2010 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: HTML5"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" OK, so that is a small enough market that some websites might begin to ignore it. Certainly there were websites which ignored compliant browsers (Firefox+Chrome) when they only had 30% of the market.
It's not even close for commercial sites to ignore. Jimsjerky.com is not going to turn away 30% of visitors just to have a flashy website. "

Then how come Jimsjerky.com used to be able to afford to throw away 30% of users (Firefox+Chrome) when in years past they were an "IE only" site?

So it might be possible to change the rich web content away from HTML4 over to HTML5 despite the older-Windows holdouts.
Most websites will just use HTML4 + Flash for multimedia. [/q]

Perhaps, but then they will lose the large market of users using iPad or iPhone.

The only way to win will be to go to HTML5 and trust that a good percentage of WindowsXP users will download Firefox or Chrome (which many have anyway).

Reply Score: 2

It's all interpretation
by mrhasbean on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 21:23 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

It's a bit like saying something is a daunting task only to have a third party quote you as saying it was a nightmare. ;)

Different people will interpret the same results or comment in a manner that best suits their own stance or preferences. As is pointed out in the WIRED article, having better raw support for certain HTML5 functions - specifically those that are targeted by the official test - doesn't necessarily mean it's better at doing certain things from a user's perspective.

That being said, it's excellent to see Microsoft moving in the right direction - will certainly keep Google, Apple and Firefox devs on their toes...

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's all interpretation
by WorknMan on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 23:29 UTC in reply to "It's all interpretation"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

As is pointed out in the WIRED article, having better raw support for certain HTML5 functions - specifically those that are targeted by the official test - doesn't necessarily mean it's better at doing certain things from a user's perspective.


Right you are. For the most part, as long as pages look ok when they load, only geeks and web devs are going to care about HTML5, benchmarks, and all that shit. As for me, if it doesn't have adblock, it's irrelevant. That goes for any browser.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: It's all interpretation
by lucas_maximus on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE: It's all interpretation"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However it does matter when you come to improving the website.

I work for a large charity that currently has a very crappy CMS, and a website that has been largely done so it works in IE6 & 7.

Making changes are a nightmare and costs the company more down the road than on the initial implementation, because instead of making nice clean changes, I have to constantly hack around what is already there.

Not an ideal solution, I would gladly fix it ... If I was allowed the time to, but I don't.

If the devs followed web standards from the start, I would not be having to hack upon hack to make things work, this cost me time, and cost the charity money.

Which means I am not working cost effective as I could have been.

It all nice looking alright on the page at the time, but maintenence costs will spiral if the implementation is not correct.

The old saying "A stitch in time, saves nine" is very pertinent, when it comes to any software development.

Foolishly, when creating a prototype web app for the same organisation , I decided to cut some corners so I would have something "that worked but was dirty" to save me some time ... I am now paying for that when creating the actual web app.

Edited 2010-11-02 23:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's all interpretation
by WorknMan on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's all interpretation"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

However it does matter when you come to improving the website.


Like I said, only webdevs will care about that kind of thing ;) Most of the rest of the world isn't going to choose a browser based on how well it scores on some compliance test or benchmark, unless it happens to be a LOT faster than its closest competitor. Even then, it still might not get the nod from many users, if it's lacking in features and/or has a crappy UI.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"However it does matter when you come to improving the website.


Like I said, only webdevs will care about that kind of thing ;) Most of the rest of the world isn't going to choose a browser based on how well it scores on some compliance test or benchmark, unless it happens to be a LOT faster than its closest competitor. Even then, it still might not get the nod from many users, if it's lacking in features and/or has a crappy UI.
"

No not only webdevs care, not directly anyhow.


My manager cares when my time is being wasted because I have to work with someone elses crap code and it take many times as long as it should do to get a job done ... his boss will care when the project is late and whoever above him will care when he sees time and money being wasted.

When I get well written clean HTML and CSS to work with I can do my job quicker, which means the project gets done on time, which means the bosses up the top are pleased and the business saves money.

This things have a ripple effect, I see it everyday through the organisation I work in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: It's all interpretation
by kaiwai on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's all interpretation"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You could always donate your time to fix their website and get it as a tax write off ;)

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You could always donate your time to fix their website and get it as a tax write off ;)


I don't work in the USA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: It's all interpretation
by kaiwai on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's all interpretation"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't work in the USA.


How about updating your profile darling - no need to be some sort of paranoid individual believing people are out to get you lol.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Have I not? Thanks for the heads up.

Reply Score: 1

Latest dev versions?
by dpanov on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 21:26 UTC
dpanov
Member since:
2009-01-12

On my Windows machine Chrome is version 8.0.5** dev, and it also appears the version of Safari used for the test is the latest stable one, and not the latest dev build.
So the test isn't using the newest alpha/beta/dev versions of all the browsers.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Latest dev versions?
by vodoomoth on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 09:33 UTC in reply to "Latest dev versions?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Same with Opera. This is the fifth month that version 10.60 has been out.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by v_bobok
by v_bobok on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 22:35 UTC
v_bobok
Member since:
2008-08-01

IE's shaping up alot lately. Good stuff.

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Tue 2nd Nov 2010 23:05 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

If it doesn't support <input type="date"> I'm not interested.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by google_ninja on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 02:28 UTC in reply to "..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

so you are only interested in opera?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Yes, im so dissapointed that just opera has implemented it.

Reply Score: 2

from the html5....
by Mellin on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 09:46 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

"The HTML5 Test suite is still being developed. The number of tests and the results on these tests will change.

The results in this document may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by others documents at any time.

It is inappropriate to cite those results as other than work in progress and unstable."

Reply Score: 3

RE: from the html5....
by Lennie on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 15:49 UTC in reply to "from the html5...."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

All the tests at w3 are provided by the browser makers themselfs, I wonder how many came from Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

Weird weird weird
by vodoomoth on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 10:17 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

The whole test looks like it has been tailored to be misleading. I came to that conclusion when I read the next message on the thread (that Kroc linked to in the 2nd comment to the story):


> It's also strange that the results include alpha/beta/preview versions of most browsers, but the stable version of Safari.

Isn't this best solved by someone from Apple providing the most recent results for whatever alpha/beta/preview version of Safari that you want represented?

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada


It's unbelievable that he has the gall to write such a thing. I can only guess but I don't see other browser vendors collaborating in the production/publication of those conformance tests: Opera's Anne van Kesteren called it "extremely silly", Apple's Stachowiak throws in a tepid "We should probably be cautious about the chance of creating PR events based on incorrect information".

On second reading, the most weird thing is W3C's Le Hegaret's own words ("Thank you all for sending test results.") imply: other vendors ran the tests and returned results to the w3c... I instantly thought "How stupid of them. In these conditions, I don't see how to blame Microsoft for reaping PR profit". But I kept on reading the email thread and a few messages later came across this from Apple's Stachowiak:

I have no objection to anyone collecting test results for any version of Safari so long as they are not labelled as official. Certainly no one asked Apple's permission to collect or publish the test results so far.

and this:

Realistically speaking the test suite isn't even 0.1%
complete yet
.

wtf is going on with the w3c?

Last message in the thread, apparently by the person who collected the results:

Apologies to all.

That was just a transmission of a test result to the public list.
I did not expect that this result is published immediately.

Maybe one of the websites that started and fueled the fuss are watching the w3c public list?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Weird weird weird
by sparkyERTW on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 12:13 UTC in reply to "Weird weird weird"
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Yeah, it's pretty clear that this was just some extremely preliminary test results that wasn't intended to make it to the media.

Thom, perhaps an update to your article is required, stating just how unofficial and unrepresentative these test results are - as indicated by those responsible for them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Weird weird weird
by Soulbender on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 14:39 UTC in reply to "Weird weird weird"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Certainly no one asked Apple's permission to collect or publish the test results so far.


Apple's permission is not required.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Weird weird weird
by vodoomoth on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Weird weird weird"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

And how does this meaningless comment of yours tell us what YOU think of the story? what your contribution to the discussion is? Have you read the email thread and put the different quotes in context?

Reply Score: 2

embrace extend extinguish
by jabjoe on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 10:27 UTC
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

Seen this phrase before, it's embrace. We leave them, but we forget and they get us back with how they have changed. Then when we're in the house and not watching anymore, they lock the doors. Then they start hitting us again. With chairs, and everything goes bad. Then we can't use a browser of our choice for the company internal website, or for our wives to do SATS marking data entry, or anything else. As we have to use IE, we have to use Windows. No no no no. The moment that door closes, because "it keeps the warmth in", or what ever, we don't wait for the click of the lock and run regardless of what "good thing" the extend is. We hit first and run out the house screaming because we know the extinguish and bad things are coming.

Reply Score: 1

RE: embrace extend extinguish
by Soulbender on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 14:42 UTC in reply to "embrace extend extinguish"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I'll be sure to wear my tinfoil hat.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: embrace extend extinguish
by jabjoe on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE: embrace extend extinguish"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Sure, never happened before or anything, or been a stated policy.....

Reply Score: 2

test was done on up-to-date dev-releases!
by smashIt on Wed 3rd Nov 2010 18:22 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

everyone doubting the results should take a look at
http://test.w3.org/html/tests/reporting/

don't be fooled by the filenames

the actual browsers are:

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MS-RTC LM 8; InfoPath.3; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E)

Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 6

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.12 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/9.0.571.0 Safari/534.12

Chromium 9.0.571.0 (64851)

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101101 Firefox/4.0b8pre

Firefox 4.0b8pre

Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.6.37 Version/11.00

Opera 11.00 alpha (build 1029)

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Safari/533.18.5

WebKit Nightly Build r70732


------------edit-----------
just noticed that they updated the results today ;)

Edited 2010-11-03 18:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

everyone doubting the results should take a look at http://test.w3.org/html/tests/reporting/ don't be fooled by the filenames the actual browsers are: "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MS-RTC LM 8; InfoPath.3; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E) Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 6
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.12 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/9.0.571.0 Safari/534.12 Chromium 9.0.571.0 (64851)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101101 Firefox/4.0b8pre Firefox 4.0b8pre
Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Presto/2.6.37 Version/11.00 Opera 11.00 alpha (build 1029)
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_4; en-us) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Safari/533.18.5 WebKit Nightly Build r70732
------------edit----------- just noticed that they updated the results today ;)
"

lemur2 p0wn3d by IE9.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

lemur2 p0wn3d by IE9.


How does that work?

My only comments on IE9 on this site to date have been to applaud the efforts of Microsoft to bring its standards-complaince into line with or ahead of other browsers. Well done.

I have had a go over other Microsoft web initiatives such as Silverlight, which is precisely the opposite of a standard, but here again Microsoft seem of late to be doing the right thing by diminshing the role of Silverlight. So another welcome initiative right there.

Microsoft even have said the IE9's HTML5 will support WebM if the user install a codec (which I'm sure Google will provide). It would have been better had Microsoft built in support for WebM by deafult, as they have done for H.264, but I suppose one can't have everything, and even this position is reasonable.

Now Windows XP still has 60% of the desktop market, and IE9 apparently won't be offered to XP users:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3904131/Interne...

... so that is a little disappointing (as far as adoption of web standards goes) I suppose. However, all is not lost even from that persepective ... that 60% of the market can keep an older version of IE if they wish/need to and still keep up with web standards by either installing Firefox (and IEtab extension), or installing Google Chrome Farme.

So it is all good for users in the end.

This outcome is, after all, what we should always support, no matter where it comes from.

Reply Score: 2

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

They're almost current. Now they just need to get WebKit Nightly 71204 Trunk tested.

Reply Score: 2

what ?
by rafaelnp on Thu 4th Nov 2010 11:46 UTC
rafaelnp
Member since:
2009-06-03

Microsoft's software sticks with standards ?

oh no, it's gonna rain frogs.

Reply Score: 1

Opera 1045
by Arguggi on Thu 4th Nov 2010 15:50 UTC
Arguggi
Member since:
2010-11-04

They have updated the test with Opera 11, but it's still the first Alpha (1029) while a second alpha has been released (1045).

Reply Score: 1