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.
Thread beginning with comment 354897
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: He should be...
by Auzy on Wed 25th Mar 2009 02:06 UTC in reply to "He should be..."
Auzy
Member since:
2008-01-20

Actually.. I'd have to agree with Microsoft at this point. Its entirely valid.

Nobody should be using draft standards in their code anyway, even if browsers can use the standards. Otherwise later if the standards change, everyone will start crying "IE8 breaks standards" after changes are made to the standards, and Microsoft complies. Microsoft is in a position where people strike them down in ALL cases of operation. Hell, most mac users are still walking around telling people that "OSX doesn't bsod, and Vista BSOD's constantly". And they get away with it. Not everything MS does is right, but they best be cautious.

ACID3 is more of a marketing tool. Browsers like to make a lot of noise that they support it, but the reality is, only a few tests in ACID3 are valid (like the performance tests). Just because Safari or Opera supports ACID3 doesn't make them a good browser (I don't personally use IE8 or any of these).

What happens if the standards change? Even ACID3 will be broken then. We shouldn't encourage websites to be developed using standards which aren't set in stone, especially when there is no good reason to. There was a good reason to break standards with 802.11n (it offered genuine benefits, and the process was moving much too slow).

In this case, I'd rather Microsoft spends their time optimising IE, so that IE9's performance is finally at par, instead of WAYYY below.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: He should be...
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 02:21 in reply to "RE: He should be..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Actually.. I'd have to agree with Microsoft at this point. Its entirely valid.


No, it isn't. Not valid at all. I'll explain why in a bit.

Not everything MS does is right, but they best be cautious. ACID3 is more of a marketing tool. Browsers like to make a lot of noise that they support it, but the reality is, only a few tests in ACID3 are valid (like the performance tests).


Where did you get this from? Acid3 test compliance with recommended standards. Not with draft standards ... recommended standards.

What happens if the standards change? Even ACID3 will be broken then. We shouldn't encourage websites to be developed using standards which aren't set in stone, especially when there is no good reason to.


You mis-understand. Let me give you an example or two.

DOM level 1 ... all browsers comply with this.

DOM level 2 ... doesn't break DOM level 1, but rather adds to it. Webkit (Safari and Chrome) and gecko (Firefox) both comply with DOM level 1 and DOM level 2, whereas IE8 doesn't comply with DOM level 2. DOM level 2 isn't draft ... it became the recommended standard in 2000. Acid3 tests for compliance (amongst other things) with DOM level 2.

DOM level 3 might still be draft ... and AFAIK no browsers implement DOM to that level yet ... but Acid3 doesn't test for it and when it is implemented it won't break DOM level 2.

Similarly for SVG. SVG 1.0 is quite old now, Acid3 looks for compliance for SVG 1.1 (which doesn't break SVG 1.0), and the draft in-development SVG is 1.2 (which doesn't break SVG 1.0 or SVG 1.1).

There was a good reason to break standards with 802.11n (it offered genuine benefits, and the process was moving much too slow). In this case, I'd rather Microsoft spends their time optimising IE, so that IE9's performance is finally at par, instead of WAYYY below.


Only IE breaks these standards ... by not implementing them. Other browsers all comply to a very good level.

IE8 doesn't have a JIT Javascript compiler, so its performance is still WAYYY below par (as set by Safari, Firefox, Opera and Chrome).

Edited 2009-03-25 02:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[3]: He should be...
by DouglasH on Sat 28th Mar 2009 03:31 in reply to "RE[2]: He should be..."
DouglasH Member since:
2008-11-16

Ok,

I can see the gist of what is being said. But I will quote from the guy that wrote Acid 3 and the status of the current specs.

"If one were to try to write such a test suite for HTML4 and DOM2 HTML, one would find that there isn’t even one browser that fully implements those specifications, let alone two. We want to have such a high bar with HTML5 to avoid falling into the trap of saying “ok the specification is done” before we can actually prove that it is possible to implement HTML5 as written. There are things in HTML4 and DOM2 HTML that simply will never be implemented as written by browsers, for example, because implementing the feature as written would mean not rendering existing Web pages as the authors expected. If we find such problems in HTML5, we’ll change the specification — but to find such problems, we have to write big test suites and that’s going to take a long time. That’s what the last 10 years of the timetable are about."

so if Ian Hickson is saying that there isn't one browser fully implementing Dom level 2 or for that matter HTML 4.x (which is impossible because to fully implement the spec as it is currently written would contradict aspects of the same spec. other areas are not fully defined, and for that matter How a browser is expect to handle errors is not even remotely defined.

Dom level 2 is even worse in that regards.

BTW the link for the interview that come from in full context is http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=71...

So from that interview it will 2022 before we start to get full parity between the browsers. as the SPECS have to be fixed first.

Reply Parent Score: 1