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 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

RE: Sounds good... at first...
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 06:04 in reply to "Sounds good... at first..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


The numbers after the W3C standards don't specify versions in the normal sense ... they specify levels.

DOM level 1 is the elementary level of the DOM standard. IE complies with this, and it is part of acid 1 tests.

DOM level 2 is the next level of the DOM standard. It specifies extra functionality over DOM 1. It does not supplant DOM level 1. Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome comply with this as well as DOM 1. IE8 does not. This is tested in Acid 3.

DOM level 3 is what the W3C is working on now. This is the bit in draft. It is functionality in addition to DOM level 1 and DOM level 2, it does not supplant the earlier levels.

It is a similar story for SVG. SVG 1.0 is the first level. SVG 1.1 is a higher level, with additional functions. This is tested in Acid 3. Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome comply with this level. IE8 does not. SVG level 1.2 is what the W3C is working on now, and this is draft.

The numbers are incremental levels of functionality in the (static) standard, they are not incremental versions of the standards. Later increments do not affect earlier increments, they just add functionality.

In other words ... Microsoft's stated excuse for not complying with Acid3 is a crock. Utter BS. Liar, liar, house on fire.

Edited 2009-03-25 06:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, what others call "levels" I call version increments :-) Though I guess that isn't true as you could then have a version 2 for Level 1.2 ( i.e., version 1 or L 1.2 was buggy ).

Anyways, I did see some mention to the "level" this "level" that, but did not connect the dots, so I must offer my thanks to you for the enlightenment.

In any event, however, I believe then a graduated compliance scale should be devised as to avoid confusion. After all, it would appear that Microsoft ( or this particular talking mouth ) did not understand this whole "level" thing much in the same way that I did not understand.

Acid3 does, however, test for compliance with standards "levels" which have not been agreed upon or finalized, so the issue remains of, in reality, a test going too far.

Maybe we need an "Acid-ISO" conformance test which tests for all current international standards, and doesn't try to jump the gun regarding which tests to include.

We need a cleaner method - one that an end-user can understand. The higher the number the better, calling it Internet 2.0 Compliant would be a great way to foster fair competition.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Sounds good... at first...
by asupcb on Wed 25th Mar 2009 18:45 in reply to "Sounds good... at first..."
asupcb Member since:
2005-11-10

Why doesn't the W3C, Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Opera work together to do something like this?

Yearly standards-ratings for web browsers make sense, IMO. Then you could have standards like W3C-2009, W3C-2010, etc that tests for full compliance with all existing standards and ISO Compliance.

This would allow tests like Acid to push into (well developed) draft standards that simply need to be tested by various browser implementations and more real-world situations.

Reply Parent Score: 2