Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 23:26 UTC, submitted by inkslinger
Internet Explorer Recently, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 8, which boasted much better standards compliance than previous iterations of the browser. While it passed the Acid2 test, IE8 failed miserably in the Acid3 test, and many people criticised Microsoft for it. Microsoft Australia's Nick Hodge has stated that Microsoft purposefully decided not to support Acid3, because the test tests against draft standards.
Permalink for comment 354912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sounds good... at first...
by looncraz on Wed 25th Mar 2009 05:19 UTC
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

At first I completely agreed with Microsoft - that is until I did some research.

IE8 scores 20/100 on the Acid3 test. This would be no problem at all, given the excuse for failure, if it only failed in those areas which tested for compliance with a non-standard standard :-)

I would expect IE8 to pass all tests which rely on a currently finalized version of a standard. New browsers should rarely be behind in his arena. IE8 still seems to be missing support for even OLD standards ( such as SVG ).

Passing ACID2 is all well and fine, it allows you to really call yourselves "standards compliant," but it doesn't really reflect the current state of affairs.

What we need is a web standards version numbering system outside of these tests. The version should increment on a fairly rigid schedule, every year.

Web Standard Version 2009 would require the ISO version of SVG 1.1, CSS 2.1, PNG 1.2, etc... Any new major browser version being released would be expected to have support for WSV-2009.

I believe, by this standard, we could give IE8 a good WSV-2000 blessing. Maybe a bit newer even. What is the saddest of all this must be that IE8 is a major improvement in this area for Microsoft. That is really sad.

In an anarchist's world, we must all move more or less in step, in an orderly fashion, or else we will punish ourselves - which is fine if we don't care.

A standardized, and advertised, web versioning system is what the world needs now. When OEMs must choose between a WSV-2008 compliant browser (say, Firefox or Opera) or a WSV-2000 compliant browser, they will see the choice as being an easy one - and Microsoft will need to everything possible to make IE9 WSV-2009 compliant.

Obviously using the years as the compliance level is not really a good idea, Web 1.0, 1.1, 1.2.. 2.0.. etc... would work just as well!

--The loon

EDIT: stupid bold just kept going...

Edited 2009-03-25 05:21 UTC

Reply Score: 11