Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
Earlier this week, Google launched Chrome Frame, a plugin for Internet Explorer 6/7/8 which replaces the Trident rendering engine with Chrome's rendering and JavaScript engine for better performance and superior standards compliance. Microsoft has responded to this release, claiming it makes Internet Explorer less secure. Note: What database category do I put this in? Internet Explorer? Google? Choices, choices!
Thread beginning with comment 386206
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-04
Sorry, but there is no CSS3 tests there, the only CSS tests are CSS 2.1.
That's true of the Wikipedia page. However the official page (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3) is quite clear that CSS3 is tested.
Your earlier point that this does not fully explain IE8's low score remains valid.
Since I have supplied the details, don't you look more than a little silly now?...I don't suppose I am ever going to get an apology from you, am I? Oh well, c'est la vie.
I dream of a time when Internet discussions can be factual without escalating interpersonal conflict. It's strange that web discussions tend to go to a level which would never occur face-to-face. I still don't understand why.
RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 19:45
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Member since:2009-08-26
Well I think you have learned a lesson in not putting too much faith in wikipedia.
Funny how your post was modded up and mine down even though the Acid 3 test clearly contains CSS3 elements:
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3
Interesting how your position has gone from "doesn't embrace standards" to "supports a subset" in a few paragraphs.
Since IE8 supports HTML 4.01 strict please tell me what you mean by IE only supports a subset.
Member since:2007-02-17
Well I think you have learned a lesson in not putting too much faith in wikipedia.
Funny how your post was modded up and mine down even though the Acid 3 test clearly contains CSS3 elements:
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3
Interesting how your position has gone from "doesn't embrace standards" to "supports a subset" in a few paragraphs.
Since IE8 supports HTML 4.01 strict please tell me what you mean by IE only supports a subset.
Funny how your post was modded up and mine down even though the Acid 3 test clearly contains CSS3 elements:
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3
Interesting how your position has gone from "doesn't embrace standards" to "supports a subset" in a few paragraphs.
Since IE8 supports HTML 4.01 strict please tell me what you mean by IE only supports a subset.
Your problem is interpretation. Either that or you just can't read.
I never said IE supports NO standards.
I simply stated, correctly, that IE lacks support for most of the standards.
This is why IE gets a score of 20 (out of 100 tests) on acid3. IE does indeed support some of the standards ... hence its score of 20.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?386157
IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot.
I also said that a very few of the tests in acid3 were against functions that were not yet stable, recommended standards.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?386162
There are a very few tests in the acid3 suite that are not yet finalised W3C standards.
Agreed. But I also pointed out that if IE were to not bother with those few, and concentrate on passing ONLY the parts of acid3 that were stable, recommended standards of five years vintage or older, then it would get a score of over 90 on acid3.
However, if one were to make a browser that passed only the acid3 subtests for standards that have been established for over, say, five years ... then one would still socre over 90 on the acid3 tests.
Yet IE8 scores only 20.
What exactly is your point in continuing to utterly ignore all of these facts?
Edited 2009-09-26 11:52 UTC
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
The Verge pointed me to a blog post by Leap Motion - which reveals how their Kinect-like motion control works with Windows 8. "From the second you plug in your Leap Motion Controller, you'll be able to browse the web and interact with your computer just by moving your hands and fingers in the air. With Leap Motion technology and Windows, you can do everything that's possible with multi-touch inputs - without actually touching anything. This also means that existing applications in Windows 7 and 8 will respond to your natural hand and finger movements. Soon, we'll show you how Leap Motion will work with Mac OS X." Quite cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
PocketNow interviews Marc Dillon, and there's an interesting note about why Jolla is keeping the display properties under wraps: "We're leaving some of those details out because we do understand that there are a lot of really big players in the market and they tend to take certain components in the market and dominate them. We created the ability to actually be able to run Sailfish on multiple hardware displays and be able to swap components, so this is part of the demand and supply planning phase. We are committed to this industrial design which is a 4.5-inch display, an 8 megapixel camera on the back and a front-facing camera at the front, and the exact specs of the display we'll provide when we're close to delivery." Something you rarely hear anything about.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
"In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
"It is good for programmers to understand what goes on inside a processor. The CPU is at the heart of our career. What goes on inside the CPU? How long does it take for one instruction to run? What does it mean when a new CPU has a 12-stage pipeline, or 18-stage pipeline, or even a 'deep' 31-stage pipeline? Programs generally treat the CPU as a black box. Instructions go into the box in order, instructions come out of the box in order, and some processing magic happens inside. As a programmer, it is useful to learn what happens inside the box. This is especially true if you will be working on tasks like program optimization. If you don't know what is going on inside the CPU, how can you optimize for it? This article is about what goes on inside the x86 processor's deep pipeline."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2007-02-17
It follows a small sub-set of W3C standards, but it doesn't implement most of them.
No, I mean that IE8 doesn't support most of the current W3C standards.
Which is what I said.
That is true as well.
Here is the list of W3C standards that acid3 tests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested
The following standards are tested by Acid3:
* DOM Level 2 Traversal (subtests 1–6)
* DOM Level 2 Range (subtests 7–11)
* Content-Type: image/png; text/plain (subtests 14–15)
* <object> handling and HTTP status codes (subtest 16)
* DOM Level 2 Core (subtests 17, 21)
* DOM Level 2 Events (subtests 17, 30–32)
* CSS Selectors (subtests 33–40)
* DOM Level 2 Style (subtest 45)
* DOM Level 2 HTML (subtest 60)
* DOM Level 2 Views
* ECMAScript GC (subtests 26–27)
* Unicode 5.0 UTF-16 (subtest 68)
* Unicode 5.0 UTF-8 (subtest 70)
* HTML 4.0 Transitional (subtest 71)
* HTML 4.01 Strict
* SVG 1.1 (subtests 74, 78)
* SVG 1.1 Fonts (subtests 77, 79)
* SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75–76)
* ECMAScript Conformance (subtests 81-96)
* Data URI scheme (subtest 97)
* XHTML 1.0 Strict (subtest 98)
* HTTP 1.1 Protocol
Sorry, but there is no CSS3 tests there, the only CSS tests are CSS 2.1.
Did you actually read the list of tests included in acid3?
Which of these is still draft, do you think?
I can give you some help if you want:
- DOM Level 2 was published in late 2000.
- CSS level 2 was developed by the W3C and published as a Recommendation in May 1998.
- The first edition of ECMA-262 (ECMAScript) was adopted by the ECMA General Assembly of June 1997.
- Unicode 5.0 July 2006
- December 1997 HTML 4.0 was published as a W3C Recommendation
- December 1999 HTML 4.01 was published as a W3C Recommendation.
- SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.
- The HTML 4.01 specification references the data URI scheme
- XHTML 1.0 Strict is the XML equivalent to strict HTML 4.01, in January 2000 it was officially adopted as a W3C Recommendation.
- The HTTP 1.1 standard as defined in RFC 2068 was officially released in January 1997.
- SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.
That is because it isn't actually true. That means that most people don't "lie for Microsoft", I suppose.
How many details did you want?
Since I have supplied the details, don't you look more than a little silly now?
Sigh!
Please read the list of web standards tested by acid3, compare that to my list of dates provided above, and then point out which are still draft, and only then get on your high horse.
-- I don't suppose I am ever going to get an apology from you, am I? Oh well, c'est la vie.
Edited 2009-09-25 12:25 UTC