PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Snubs Standards with IE8


MacBytes
Mar 21, 2009, 08:11 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Microsoft
Link: Microsoft Snubs Standards with IE8 (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090321211123)
Description:: IE blows but we already knew that.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

11800506
Mar 21, 2009, 08:25 PM
Hardly surprising that IE fails the Acid test - it's IE. Microsoft needs to wake up and learn that the internet is changing around them and that they need to comply with open standards. Hopefully that wake up call will come soon with their dwindling market share, but that may be too much to expect from Microsoft.

SnowLeopard2008
Mar 21, 2009, 08:42 PM
Hardly surprising. MS makes their own standards because they have cash to burn. And those standards are usually crap.

MAG.
Mar 21, 2009, 08:48 PM
Who cares about IE. It's known to suck. Firefox FTW!!!

Kilamite
Mar 21, 2009, 09:20 PM
What version of Safari gets 100?

thomahawk
Mar 21, 2009, 09:32 PM
comon microsoft! get your act together sheesh..

neonblue2
Mar 21, 2009, 09:35 PM
What version of Safari gets 100?

Safari 4. The WebKit binaries have also been able to get 100 for a long time.

danny_w
Mar 21, 2009, 09:38 PM
Who cares about IE. It's known to suck. Firefox FTW!!!
That may well be true, but IE is still the vast majority of users out there. Anybody that makes websites for general use better care about it or they severely limit their market.

Chundles
Mar 21, 2009, 09:48 PM
Safari 4. The WebKit binaries have also been able to get 100 for a long time.

The version of mobile safari in iPhone 3.0 beta gets a 97 too. Makes the other mobile browsers look a bit naff.

MisterMe
Mar 21, 2009, 09:51 PM
... they have cash to burn. ...No, it does not. No mistake that Microsoft is the 600 pound gorilla in the market, but it has lost momentum to the spider monkeys. This move to flaunt W3C standards in IE8 is a strategic mistake--a critical strategic mistake. Charles Colson, convicted Nixon Administration official of Watergate scandal fame, said:

When you have them by the b@ll$, their hearts and minds will follow.
This move might have worked when the Redmond Monopoly had the World by the b@ll$. It doesn't anymore. Today the Windows community has options and it knows it. There will be some Microsoft sheep among web developers who will follow the Redmond Monopoly over the cliff. Others will turn their backs on Microsoft and not look back.

danny_w
Mar 21, 2009, 10:03 PM
No, it does not. No mistake that Microsoft is the 600 pound gorilla in the market, but it has lost momentum to the spider monkeys. This move to flaunt W3C standards in IE8 is a strategic mistake--a critical strategic mistake. Charles Colson, convicted Nixon Administration official of Watergate scandal fame, said:


This move might have worked when the Redmond Monopoly had the World by the b@ll$. It doesn't anymore. Today the Windows community has options and it knows it. There will be some Microsoft sheep among web developers who will follow the Redmond Monopoly over the cliff. Others will turn their backs on Microsoft and not look back.
Unfortunately there are far too many business websites that require IE for the business world to snub it. Just one example: if you get paid by ADP, you can't view your account information or paycheck on anything other than IE, period. When this situation changes maybe we will have a chance of ditching IE, but not until then. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. ADP and others that cater to business knows that business is almost exclusively MS, so they cater to that market and have no incentive to change.

skaertus
Mar 21, 2009, 10:10 PM
Microsoft Snubs Standards with IE8

Yes, but why Microsoft would care about it? IE still represent over two thirds of the browsers. It would be insane to do a website which follows standards but is not IE-compatible. So, this "standards" issue may be useful for Opera or Chrome, but not to IE.

zap2
Mar 21, 2009, 10:12 PM
Yes, but why Microsoft would care about it? IE still represent over two thirds of the browsers. It would be insane to do a website which follows standards but is not IE-compatible. So, this "standards" issue may be useful for Opera or Chrome, but not to IE.

Basically MS is abusing it OS market share to be a jerk about standards for Opera, FF, Chrome and Safari.

IE wouldn't have 1/2 that market share if it weren't for coming with Windows.

Sehnsucht
Mar 21, 2009, 10:33 PM
Hardly surprising. MS makes their own standards because they have cash to burn. And those standards are usually crap.

"Advertising...advertising...advertising...advertising...fix Vista...advertising...advertising...advertising...fix Vista..." :D

Relax, I'm kidding. :cool:

MAG.
Mar 21, 2009, 10:42 PM
That may well be true, but IE is still the vast majority of users out there. Anybody that makes websites for general use better care about it or they severely limit their market.


IE wouldn't have 1/2 that market share if it weren't for coming with Windows.

Answer to you Danny :D Also, I'd like to add that all Windows Users cannot remove IE from their operating system even if they're not using it, so basically you're counted as a user. I have it on my PCs, and it was only used to download Firefox!

skaertus
Mar 21, 2009, 10:42 PM
IE wouldn't have 1/2 that market share if it weren't for coming with Windows.

Who knows? Windows 7 will make it possible to choose another web browser. Let's see how IE Explorer will hold up against Firefox then.

You could also say that Safari wouldn't have 8% of market share if it didn't come with MacOS...

MAG.
Mar 21, 2009, 10:48 PM
Who knows? Windows 7 will make it possible to choose another web browser. Let's see how IE Explorer will hold up against Firefox then.

You could also say that Safari wouldn't have 8% of market share if it didn't come with MacOS...

Very true :D. Also, I read somewhere that Windows 7 will allow you to remove IE which is probably the first thing I'll do!

zap2
Mar 21, 2009, 10:49 PM
Who knows? Windows 7 will make it possible to choose another web browser. Let's see how IE Explorer will hold up against Firefox then.


Ok....but as long as Windows ships with just IE, that point is some what prove by W7. Its possible to use FF, Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc as your main browser now, but as long as peopling buying PC are ignorant to other browsers, that won't matter



You could also say that Safari wouldn't have 8% of market share if it didn't come with MacOS...
And I'd say you'd have a darn good point!

But Safari seems to be meeting more standard the IE8(and even if it wasn't, who would care? Apple's market share is small enough that few companies would waste time supporting Safari..Apple would be forced to change..MS can force web sites to support it)

skaertus
Mar 21, 2009, 10:53 PM
Ok....but as long as Windows ships with just IE, that point is some what prove by W7. Its possible to use FF, Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc as your main browser now, but as long as peopling buying PC are ignorant to other browsers, that won't matter

Yes, but the thing is... Windows 7 will make it possible to "turn off" IE. Will that help competition, perhaps? I think it will depend on how this feature is implemented... but I think Microsoft will do it in a way to maintain the lion market share.

But Safari seems to be meeting more standard the IE8(and even if it wasn't, who would care? Apple's market share is small enough that few companies would waste time supporting Safari..Apple would be forced to change..MS can force web sites to support it)

Yes, that's the point. Microsoft plays the tune, and everybody else has to dance.

eastercat
Mar 22, 2009, 01:49 AM
The sites that are IE only get one of two responses. If I am forced to use it, I break out VMWare and hold my nose. Otherwise, that site can kiss my cat's anal sacs. :rolleyes:

Veri
Mar 22, 2009, 04:41 AM
Protip: When Internet Explorer fails ACID tests, it's because they hate standards and kill puppies for profit. When Firefox fails ACID tests, it's because they're irrelevant and only test little used parts of the standard rather than demonstrate real-world rendering accuracy.

Analog Kid
Mar 22, 2009, 05:07 AM
It'll be the mobile browsers that break IE's stranglehold. Right now, sites cover 75% of their traffic (or whatever it is) with one flavor of their code, another 15% (or whatever it is) with a Firefox flavor, another 8% (or whatever it is) with a Safari flavor, etc... In general, most sites take an "IE and my favorite underdog" approach.

As every other browser moves more and more towards standards, they'll be able to support all browsers with two flavors: IE and everyone else. Because it suddenly gets easier, more sites will begin to give a fuller experience to everyone else. That will already begin to tip the balance a bit as people who don't prefer IE but use it to avoid compatibility headaches can now leave IE because there are now fewer and fewer compatibility headaches.

The rise of mobile browsers is going to continue to push down IE's share. This is also where sites are going to go to compete for new business. As the market share shifts, and priorities shift, sites will start writing for everyone else first, and IE second.

Maybe it's all just wishful thinking, but I really think the world has changed but MS is still fighting the last war.
Protip: When Internet Explorer fails ACID tests, it's because they hate standards and kill puppies for profit. When Firefox fails ACID tests, it's because they're irrelevant and only test little used parts of the standard rather than demonstrate real-world rendering accuracy.
Even the best hypocrisy arguments are going to have a hard time papering over a 20% success rate...

Eraserhead
Mar 22, 2009, 05:20 AM
Unfortunately there are far too many business websites that require IE for the business world to snub it. Just one example: if you get paid by ADP, you can't view your account information or paycheck on anything other than IE, period. When this situation changes maybe we will have a chance of ditching IE, but not until then. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. ADP and others that cater to business knows that business is almost exclusively MS, so they cater to that market and have no incentive to change.

That's the fault of the site owner, and less and less sites are making that short-sited decision.

In general, most sites take an "IE and my favorite underdog" approach.

So then as all the "underdogs" are standards compliant everyone can see the site 99% correct ;).

EmperorDarius
Mar 22, 2009, 06:03 AM
I wonder what would IE's market share be if it wasn't bundled with Windows.
What a horrible browser. Typical Microsoft Product.

Veri
Mar 22, 2009, 06:37 AM
Even the best hypocrisy arguments are going to have a hard time papering over a 20% success rate...
If the ACID3 test is irrelevant then any performance between 0% and 100% is irrelevant. If the ACID3 test is relevant then any performance below 95% is awful.

If runner A would fly with a 70% successful landing rate, but runner B would fly with a 20% successful landing rate, then it really doesn't matter how hard a time runner B has papering over his poor flying skills - neither of them are pilots and the simulator is just a bit of fun.

On the other hand, if pilot A has a 70% successful landing rate, and pilot B only has a 20% successful landing rate, they're both not fit to be pilots. For A to brag to B, "ha! I've used the ejector seat way less than you!" is true but worthless.

No-one expects IE to be a pilot. Webkit already is a successful pilot. Firefox is the loud-talking pilot with a 70% safety record.

PCMacUser
Mar 22, 2009, 06:47 AM
I've just run it on IE 7, and it only scored 12/100. So 20/100 is actually an improvement.

Firefox 3 scored 71/100, and Safari 4 Beta scored 100/100.

Povilas
Mar 22, 2009, 06:59 AM
Who knows? Windows 7 will make it possible to choose another web browser. Let's see how IE Explorer will hold up against Firefox then.

You could also say that Safari wouldn't have 8% of market share if it didn't come with MacOS...

Not the same thing ;) Safari was released in 2003 and Mac OS X already was in the market. Microsoft already had 9/10 of market in 2003, so every app they put in Windows installation could be used by millions, exactly what happened with IE, Safari market share is mostly connected to how much computers Apple sells and some by Safari for Windows. So again not the same thing.

Doju
Mar 22, 2009, 08:16 AM
If the ACID3 test is irrelevant then any performance between 0% and 100% is irrelevant. If the ACID3 test is relevant then any performance below 95% is awful.

If runner A would fly with a 70% successful landing rate, but runner B would fly with a 20% successful landing rate, then it really doesn't matter how hard a time runner B has papering over his poor flying skills - neither of them are pilots and the simulator is just a bit of fun.

On the other hand, if pilot A has a 70% successful landing rate, and pilot B only has a 20% successful landing rate, they're both not fit to be pilots. For A to brag to B, "ha! I've used the ejector seat way less than you!" is true but worthless.

No-one expects IE to be a pilot. Webkit already is a successful pilot. Firefox is the loud-talking pilot with a 70% safety record.That is a horrible analogy.

Browser standards are not airplanes. If a browser supports 70% of the standards, it will likely work more than fine. 20%? No, it won't.

Where do people come up with these?

ditzy
Mar 22, 2009, 08:30 AM
making a browser that follows so few standards is really just arrogance on Microsoft's part. It is actually embarrassing.

Eraserhead
Mar 22, 2009, 09:35 AM
If the ACID3 test is irrelevant then any performance between 0% and 100% is irrelevant. If the ACID3 test is relevant then any performance below 95% is awful.

If runner A would fly with a 70% successful landing rate, but runner B would fly with a 20% successful landing rate, then it really doesn't matter how hard a time runner B has papering over his poor flying skills - neither of them are pilots and the simulator is just a bit of fun.

On the other hand, if pilot A has a 70% successful landing rate, and pilot B only has a 20% successful landing rate, they're both not fit to be pilots. For A to brag to B, "ha! I've used the ejector seat way less than you!" is true but worthless.

No-one expects IE to be a pilot. Webkit already is a successful pilot. Firefox is the loud-talking pilot with a 70% safety record.

A better analogy might be public transport reliability, 100% is brilliant, 70% is still OK, but 20% is truly dire.

clevin
Mar 22, 2009, 09:44 AM
Protip: When Internet Explorer fails ACID tests, it's because they hate standards and kill puppies for profit. When Firefox fails ACID tests, it's because they're irrelevant and only test little used parts of the standard rather than demonstrate real-world rendering accuracy.

If the ACID3 test is irrelevant then any performance between 0% and 100% is irrelevant. If the ACID3 test is relevant then any performance below 95% is awful.

If runner A would fly with a 70% successful landing rate, but runner B would fly with a 20% successful landing rate, then it really doesn't matter how hard a time runner B has papering over his poor flying skills - neither of them are pilots and the simulator is just a bit of fun.

On the other hand, if pilot A has a 70% successful landing rate, and pilot B only has a 20% successful landing rate, they're both not fit to be pilots. For A to brag to B, "ha! I've used the ejector seat way less than you!" is true but worthless.

No-one expects IE to be a pilot. Webkit already is a successful pilot. Firefox is the loud-talking pilot with a 70% safety record.

successful pilot? 70% safety rate? when Acid3 just released. webkit has 31/100, firefox 2 has 51/100. What did you say then?

it only tells you everything is evolving. In less than a year! webkit now has 100/100,, gecko has 94/100. exactly how is 6% difference, in your mind, same as 80% difference?

not to mention, which part of the article discussing the deficiency of acid 3 test don't you agree? list them, line by line, and argue against the reasoning!

you dont just throw a general statement with no argument behind it. thats lazy reasoning, and dont expect people to agree.

That is a horrible analogy.

Browser standards are not airplanes. If a browser supports 70% of the standards, it will likely work more than fine. 20%? No, it won't.

Where do people come up with these?

exactly, I made a statement before here at MR, and I think its so true in this case.

Some people just don't get it, analogue is such a useless reasoning in discussion, they made up analogous that only they can interpret and expect others to agree.

worst method of discussion.

Finally about IE8, at least it now passes Acid 2.

Veri
Mar 22, 2009, 10:14 AM
Browser standards are not airplanes. If a browser supports 70% of the standards, it will likely work more than fine. 20%? No, it won't.
Do you want to be a little more precise with your stats and sources than "will likely", "more than fine", "won't"? It sounds like you're just making these assertions up.

What's so special about Firefox's 50%, but mysteriously unimportant about the 20% implemented by both and the 30% implemented by neither? Any argument based on "the 30% is hardly used" is no justification because any web developer with sense avoids features not supported by the 2 major browsers.

If it's ok for a web developer to "code to Firefox"'s subset of the standard, then why not "code to IE"'s subset of the standard? You can create perfectly functional web pages with either. Sites which only work properly in Firefox, such as those using Slashcode, are almost invariably (1) geeky; (2) making completely horrible, slow and unnecessary use of "Web2.0" features to do something that was already done fine a simpler way.

Remaining sites are ones like MobileMe which pretend that HTML/Javascript is an application presentation solution, but in fact demonstrate with great success that HTML/Javascript is a very weak alternative to a native desktop. This is partly because of an attitude such as the one you demonstrated: W3C produces convoluted, messy, any-purpose standards, then browser writers think it's ok to just implement what they think is relevant instead of going back to W3C and saying, "hey, let's actually work together, decide where we're really aiming, and create something robust that we can all implement properly".

(If you doubt this, contrast the conceptual simplicity and pace of progress of web standards in the 1990s with this decade's mess.)

webkit has 31/100, firefox 2 has 51/100. What did you say then?
"Fix it"? Safari has, Firefox hasn't.

it only tells you everything is evolving.
It tells you that standards aren't a priority - whether that's making good standards or implementing them fully from the start before you worry about bells&whistles.

webkit now has 100/100,, gecko has 94/100.
That's progress. I look forward to release of Firefox as stable as Safari 4 which includes the latest Gecko engine.

exactly how is 6% difference, in your mind, same as 80% difference?
Is this a straw man? I'm comparing browsers that are considered release-worthy. But you ask a good question: the similarity is that 94<100 and 20<100, so web developers still have to code to the browser rather than coding to the standard. They are more likely to get away with coding to the standard with Firefox, assuming that the Firefox implementers' idea of what constitutes a part of the standard worth using coincides with web developers' opinions, but they still must ultimately code to the browser. For some reason, implementing a standard is not top priority. Why not?

not to mention, which part of the article discussing the deficiency of acid 3 test don't you agree?
Which article? If you can show me an article where a complete implementation of relevant standards is shown to result in <100% in the ACID3 test then I am interested. If you're going to tell me that much of ACID3 is "irrelevant" then you're playing exactly the same game Microsoft plays to half-implement standards and get people "coding to Microsoft" instead.

analogue is such a useless reasoning in discussion
Analogue is perfectly reasonable in discussion as long as those who disagree with you don't pick up on irrelevant points of the analogous scenario and build a straw man from it. It's based on the ability to abstract away common features and reincarnate them somewhere more familiar or easier to consider. It's a great tool whether you're studying sociology or mathematics, and yet the only group who seem to consistently hate it is the engineers, who constantly bring up irrelevant "mistakes".

zap2
Mar 22, 2009, 10:35 AM
Yes, that's the point. Microsoft plays the tune, and everybody else has to dance.

What do you mean "point'?

Do you mean problem?

clevin
Mar 22, 2009, 10:50 AM
Which article? If you can show me an article where a complete implementation of relevant standards is shown to result in <100% in the ACID3 test then I am interested. .

im shocked? you didn't even know why some people complain that acid 3 is a missed opportunity? you didn't even read the articles about it?

and yet you have so many problems with an argument that you dont even know?

do yourself a favor and search for acid 3 here at MR. its fully discussed, extensively, like 1 year ago.

Analogous might be useful sometimes, but the problem is that most people, including your previous one, dont make valid comparison.

acid test is not safety.
the pilot of firefox allow each passengers to adjust whatever they want to the plane
the pilot of firefox allow passengers to do more than others.
the pilot of firefox listen to passengers and try to meet their needs,
the pilot of firefox quickly disclose and fix the security issues, much faster than pilot webkit and pilot ie
the pilot of firefox allow each passenger dress their belongs as how they like it.
the pilot of firefox dont brag their plane "secure from day 1", and then turn around got hacked in 24 hrs.
the pilot of firefox makes his plane consume half of the fuel than pilot webkit for the same flight distance.
the pilot of firefox allow passengers to find where they want to go in a fraction time than pilot webkit, pilot ie, pilot chrome.
the pilot of firefox allow passengers to get service they want w/o asking the flight attendant, rather, just a gesture.

your analogous is biased, unfair, and geared towards whatever your bias want readers to believe.

analogues is a fine argument? maybe, sorry most people can't use it to a fair extend.

Veri
Mar 22, 2009, 11:08 AM
im shocked? you didn't even know why some people complain that acid 3 is a missed opportunity? you didn't even read the articles about it?
A straw man, again. I'm not arguing that acid3 is a complete test of standards conformance, but that - as far as I'm aware - it's an accurate test. I'm saying, then, if you have any sort of belief in current web standards then you should be passing it 100%.

It's the height of hubris to say, "Oh well this stuff is just too esoteric to bother with - the stuff my browser isn't passing is just the stuff that no web developer should care for. I am, after all, the voice of the several million web developers across the globe, and if I can't think of a good use for some part of the standard then it must be useless." And yet I can't find an article criticising acid3 that doesn't come down to this. Please, if you have a genuine criticism on the accuracy of acid3, then present it - that would be perfectly reasonable.

Analogous might be useful sometimes, but the problem is that most people, including your previous one, dont make valid comparison.
It's a perfectly valid comparison as long as you don't try to read more in to it than is relevant...

acid test is not safety.
...and, obviously, "no-one dies if acid3 isn't fully supported" is an example of an irrelevant distinction.

the pilot of firefox allow each passengers to adjust whatever they want to the plane
the pilot of firefox allow passengers to do more than others...
I am not sure whether this is addressing the argument or just an opportunity to big up Firefox. Firefox has several good points, yes.

your analogous is biased, unfair, and geared towards whatever your bias want readers to believe.
"If A makes loud claims about aiming to be a B, then it is unreasonable to somehow fall 30% short of B and then say that at least you're not falling 80% short." You're not a standards-compliant browser if you fail at 30% of an accurate, comprehensive standards test; just as you're not an airworthy pilot if you fail at 30% of your landings. How clear does this have to be made?

clevin
Mar 22, 2009, 11:18 AM
as far as I'm aware - it's an accurate test.

then you do need to read more, because its NOT. whats so hard to read that famous "missed opportunity " article? you can even google it!

You're not a standards-compliant browser if you fail at 30% of an accurate, comprehensive standards test;

wow, now comprehensive shows up again? you should really read the article before making these type of statements.

whats so standard compliance when you implement 5 out of 50 items in a standard? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when the standard you implemented was abolished half a year ago? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when the standard will never be passed on a slow computer? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when you implement an open standard with an closed source components? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when the acid 3 test author complain you about opportunist target optimizing? tell me?
whats so "comprehensive" when the test only openly check one out of a dozen items in a standard and offer browser makers opportunity to pass without meaningful implementation?
whats so good about acid 3, that the author himself stated that he will develop acid 4 in closed room such that nobody can do targeted optimization?

whats your standard for? for a score? or for an open and progressive web?

Mackilroy
Mar 22, 2009, 11:55 AM
It's just a discussion, clevin. Web browsers aren't a religion. :p You're taking this waaaaaay too personally.

As long as web browsers are improving, good for us.

skaertus
Mar 22, 2009, 12:01 PM
It's just a discussion, clevin. Web browsers aren't a religion. You're taking this waaaaaay too personally.

As long as web browsers are improving, good for us.

Yes. And, at the end of the day, they have all the same features and do the same job...

Veri
Mar 22, 2009, 12:14 PM
then you do need to read more, because its NOT. whats so hard to read that famous "missed opportunity " article? you can even google it!
The article (http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/), when it's not displaying the academic quality of such neutral descriptions as "best browser the web has ever known", is mostly as I described. To summarise: "most stuff that doesn't work is irrelevant or has a work-around(!); rigour is not as significant to us as rushing Firefox 3 out the door! Woohoo!"

The accuracy argument, as far as I can find one, centres around the complaint that it's testing to standards finalised up to 2004, from which certain features have been obsoleted or updated in a backwards incompatible manner. This is basically saying, "There may be millions of once standards-compliant web pages written before 2008, but if people aren't prepared to all update them to the current state of the art then, by Jove, we're not going to worry about rendering them properly." What a time-wasting effort for content producers across the globe! and all because most humans consider the browser a tool but Mozilla Inc. considers the browser a master.

whats so standard compliance when the standard you implemented was abolished half a year ago? tell me?
I'll reiterate this most important point: because those who actually produce the content should not be expected to update something that was perfectly compliant 24 hours ago. It is a waste of time and it just discourages people from thinking about standards in the first place. If I publish a physical book it is "compliant" with book-ness until every edition rots from old age; suddenly now a web page is like an MSCE certification, an upgrade treadmill where I have to shell out my time and/or money every few years just to make it acceptable? I don't think so. Sad to see another Microsoft trait in the Mozilla business, though.

whats so standard compliance when the standard will never be passed on a slow computer? tell me?
Is it a timing standard? If so, why would it pass on a computer that can't keep up with timing requirements? Does the browser degrade gracefully? I realise that with the popularity of the nowhere-near-real time Linux and Windows that guaranteed performance is just one of those things you don't even consider being useful: the bears out mostly in the horrible UI lag on all modern operating systems even on the fastest hardware.

whats so standard compliance when you implement an open standard with an closed source components? tell me?
What? Why does an open standard need an open source implementation?

whats so "comprehensive" when the test only openly check one out of a dozen items in a standard and offer browser makers opportunity to pass without meaningful implementation?
You're confusing the words "complete" and "comprehensive". The acid3 test covers a wide scope, stopping browser writers from lazily implementing only the basics. Thus it is comprehensive. It doesn't test every detail of each section of the standard.

whats so good about acid 3, that the author himself stated that he will develop acid 4 in closed room such that nobody can do targeted optimization?
And when acid4 is released to the world what happens exactly? This decision seems flawed. Create more standards-compliance tests, sure, but don't cripple the development of one just because it's proven so popular!

I'm out of this discussion now, as I have work to do. Thanks for the chat - have fun.

SactoGuy18
Mar 22, 2009, 12:17 PM
What do you mean "snubs standards with IE8"?

I've played with IE 8.0 in Windows Vista Home Premium (SP1) and if your web site is W3C standards compliant it will not change the rendering engine for older compatibility mode. Besides, a lot of the stuff in the Acid test are features that are not commonly used in web design nowadays.

I do think though, that since by default IE 8.0's rendering mode wants a W3C compliant web page, we'll see a lot of web pages redesigned so it renders correctly in IE 8.0 default mode, the upcoming Firefox 3.5, the upcoming Safari 4.0, and the upcoming Google Chrome 2.0.

MisterMe
Mar 22, 2009, 12:30 PM
...

whats so standard compliance when you implement 5 out of 50 items in a standard? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when the standard you implemented was abolished half a year ago? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when the standard will never be passed on a slow computer? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when you implement an open standard with an closed source components? tell me?
whats so standard compliance when the acid 3 test author complain you about opportunist target optimizing? tell me?
whats so "comprehensive" when the test only openly check one out of a dozen items in a standard and offer browser makers opportunity to pass without meaningful implementation?
whats so good about acid 3, that the author himself stated that he will develop acid 4 in closed room such that nobody can do targeted optimization?

whats your standard for? for a score? or for an open and progressive web?clevin, what in God's name are you yammering about now? The Acid 3 Test is both a rendering test and a performance test. This was brought home to me when Safari 4b scored a 100 on my new MacBook Pro, but only 94 on my two old Power Mac G5s. By Safari 4's release date, hopefully, Apple will have improved its performance so that it scores a 100 on PPC hardware.

As for Firefox's score that seems to have your knickers in such a big knot--well, I really don't see the problem. It is true that Firefox 3.0.7 scores a 71 on my PM G5. However, FF 3.0.7 is not the only version available. FF 3.1b3 scores 93. FF 3.6a1pre (Minefield), the latest daily, scores 94. That is the same score achieved by Safari 4b on the same computer.

The point is that Firefox is close and making progress. Opera 10 pre-release scores 100 and so too will the release version of Opera 10. The beta version of Safari 4 scores 100 on some hardware and so too will the release version of Safari 4. We can expect every browser to reach full WC3-compliance as confirmed by the Acid3 Test except one. The one non-compliant browser will be Internet Explorer. It's not even trying.

You may weep and wale and gnash your teeth. You may bitch and moan and decry WC3 standards and its Acid3 Test. But, you can't change the facts. The facts are that Microsoft failed--badly.

Arpan
Mar 22, 2009, 02:43 PM
See the main problem with IE has been not that they don't support the newest standards.

The problem is that even the standards that they do support, the support is extremely buggy.

Examples:


IE 6 implemented margins and padding differently from all other browsers
IE does not even follow it's own implementation properly. Sometimes, for no apparent reason, the margins are doubled etc.
Transparency support is broken. Example, even using IE's own proprietary alpha filter to implement transparency, all text and links within that element cannot be selected. Workaround: play tricks with element and it's parent element and their positioning and block attributes
Form elements display over other elements even when they are supposed to be under.


Some of these were fixed in IE6, others were not. And there are many bugs that still keep occurring in IE7.

On the other hand, although Firefox does not get a 100 in Acid3, they have implemented all commonly used CSS attributes correctly. And they are working on adding support for the remaining attributes. But here is the key thing, you don't have to wait until they finish adding all attributes to start using them.

Since over 80% to 90% of the attributes are supported by all 3 browsers-Safari, Opera & Firefox, you can actually use all of them. Except that since IE 8 does not yet support them, we cannot really make use of them except in rare circumstances.

The reason Firefox's 80-90% is not considered a problem is because they are not holding us back, it it IE that is holding everyone back.

MacRumorUser
Mar 22, 2009, 02:43 PM
I ran this test using Google Chrome & got a score of 79/100
I ran the same test using IE8 with Windows 7 7057 RC1 and got 12/100

GonMacNvrGoBack
Mar 22, 2009, 04:31 PM
[QUOTE=clevin;7325316]

Some people just don't get it, analogue is such a useless reasoning in discussion, they made up analogous that only they can interpret and expect others to agree.

Don't you mean analogy?, plural of which being analogies :rolleyes:

It's astonishing how personally people are taking an article over the performance of web browsers with a test - calm down!

Pretty appropriate that I chose to pick up on the word analogy, really.

PCMacUser
Mar 22, 2009, 05:41 PM
I ran this test using Google Chrome & got a score of 79/100
I ran the same test using IE8 with Windows 7 7057 RC1 and got 12/100

I get 12/100 with IE8 when running in 'compatibility mode', and 20/100 when running natively.

Opera 9.64 gets 85/100 on Vista.

Analog Kid
Mar 22, 2009, 05:53 PM
How did a thread about IE failing standards compliance become a Firefox debate?
No-one expects IE to be a pilot. Webkit already is a successful pilot. Firefox is the loud-talking pilot with a 70% safety record.
Oh, that's how...
then you do need to read more, because its NOT. whats so hard to read that famous "missed opportunity " article? you can even google it!

And Clevin, you need to calm the heck down. The article you're pointing to, aside from being partisan, actually casts Firefox in a pretty bad light for all the reasons Veri pointed out.
...and, obviously, "no-one dies if acid3 isn't fully supported" is an example of an irrelevant distinction.
Actually it is *the* relevant distinction. If it wasn't, then the analogy wouldn't have been about pilots and ejection seats and the need to hit 100%.

What you wanted, I think, was an analogy about utility. But that's not really the point either to my mind.
The reason Firefox's 80-90% is not considered a problem is because they are not holding us back, it it IE that is holding everyone back.
This is the point.

Don't you mean analogy?, plural of which being analogies
Ugh. A typo or rushed error is one thing, but it was becoming a meme... I was starting to wonder if I was looking at it wrong. Thanks.

Yvan256
Mar 23, 2009, 08:24 AM
As an example, a lot of projects I work on have rounded corners and drop shadows. If I use that as my standards on which I judge the browsers (forget Acid 3), I get this:
Safari 3 gets 100% on my test.
Firefox 3 gets 50% on my test.
Opera 9 gets 0% on my test.
IE8 gets 0% on my test.

In the end what really matters is if a browser supports what you need, not how much it scores on a test page.

MisterMe
Mar 23, 2009, 08:57 AM
...

In the end what really matters is if a browser supports what you need.That's complete nonsense. Web browsers are not word processors. They are the clients designed to access globally-connected information. You are one small insignificant mode. Timothy Berners-Lee developed the WWW as a collaborative environment by which scientists could share their work. This means that the people who created websites were the same people who used them. Your version of the Web, in which only individual needs matter, would be the antithesis of the World Wide Web.

Tenebrous
Mar 23, 2009, 10:11 AM
Typical Microsoft. This is a genuinely stupid move on their part. People don't need any more reasons to dislike Microsoft, and yet, they keep giving us more. I guess they learned nothing from the DOJ (and European) lawsuits. Oh well. If you don't learn the lesson the first time, you're doomed to repeat it until you do.

Pride comes before a fall.

RemarkabLee
Mar 23, 2009, 10:16 AM
Where do people come up with these?

MacRumors Forums of course! ;)

Yvan256
Mar 23, 2009, 10:31 AM
That's complete nonsense. [...] Your version of the Web, in which only individual needs matter, would be the antithesis of the World Wide Web.

I was talking about my point of view (vs the Acid 3 test), so of course it's "complete nonsense" on a global scale. I never said browsers should only support what I use, that would be ridiculous. I never said "my version of the Web" or anything like that, your reply makes me look like an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, and I take offense to that.

I know that web browsers need to support standards. What I'm saying is that everybody seems to be so fixated on that Acid 3 test that it has become meaningless, in a way.

I don't care if browser X gets 70% on Acid 3 because if it still doesn't support things like border-radius and box-shadow, it's holding me back.

Arpan
Mar 23, 2009, 04:26 PM
That's complete nonsense. Web browsers are not word processors.

It's not complete nonsense, not even on a global scale.

The goal is to support the features that are most needed. Things like rounded corners, transparency, drop shadows, nth element etc. are used widely, and if all the browsers supported them, we would be able to design really attractive designs layouts without resorting to background images.

In addition, getting rid of background images for such designs would allow us to design layouts that are fluid, able to adapt to different sized screens, even to mobile phone browsers etc. without jumping through hoops.

Then features that allow more layout options such as css tables layout,

Once the basic features are supported, then you move on the more fancy features, like CSS animations, transforms etc.

PCMacUser
Mar 23, 2009, 05:40 PM
That's complete nonsense. Web browsers are not word processors. They are the clients designed to access globally-connected information. You are one small insignificant mode. Timothy Berners-Lee developed the WWW as a collaborative environment by which scientists could share their work. This means that the people who created websites were the same people who used them. Your version of the Web, in which only individual needs matter, would be the antithesis of the World Wide Web.

I think you misinterpreted what he meant.

For me, the WWW is a product. I pay for it, we all pay for it. If I only use a browser to use Facebook and read the daily weather report, that's my paid privilege. It does not make me an anti-web-establishmentarian. A browser can be designed to meet the Internet halfway, based on the needs of its users.

Hell, Safari on the iPhone doesn't even have Flash.

clevin
Mar 23, 2009, 06:05 PM
clevin, what in God's name are you yammering about now? The Acid 3 Test is both a rendering test and a performance test. This was brought home to me when Safari 4b scored a 100 on my new MacBook Pro, but only 94 on my two old Power Mac G5s. By Safari 4's release date, hopefully, Apple will have improved its performance so that it scores a 100 on PPC hardware.


There should not be a performance-standard hybrid test.

yes, acid 3 is a performance test, but not shown on scores, use your safari 4b, on your MBP, run acid 3, then click that "A", see what it says.
As for Firefox's score that seems to have your knickers in such a big knot--well, I really don't see the problem. It is true that Firefox 3.0.7 scores a 71 on my PM G5. However, FF 3.0.7 is not the only version available. FF 3.1b3 scores 93. FF 3.6a1pre (Minefield), the latest daily, scores 94. That is the same score achieved by Safari 4b on the same computer.

The point is that Firefox is close and making progress. Opera 10 pre-release scores 100 and so too will the release version of Opera 10. The beta version of Safari 4 scores 100 on some hardware and so too will the release version of Safari 4. We can expect every browser to reach full WC3-compliance as confirmed by the Acid3 Test except one. The one non-compliant browser will be Internet Explorer. It's not even trying.
did you even read the nonsense from the other post to which one I was replying?
You may weep and wale and gnash your teeth. You may bitch and moan and decry WC3 standards and its Acid3 Test. But, you can't change the facts. The facts are that Microsoft failed--badly.
W3C, not WC3, and acid 3 test is NOT officially constructed by W3C.

I dont need to change the fact, IE is failing on the standard. but webkit's abusing of the acid3 test isn't exactly that helpful neither. When you selectively implement one out of a dozen items in a standard just to brag about passing acid3, what help does it do to web developers? zippo.

IE 8 does pass acid2, the progress should be recognized. even a small step.

NT1440
Mar 23, 2009, 06:09 PM
I dont need to change the fact, IE is failing on the standard. but webkit's abusing of the acid3 test isn't exactly that helpful neither. When you selectively implement one out of a dozen items in a standard just to brag about passing acid3, what help does it do to web developers? zippo.

Yes, im sure they implement standards "for bragging rights"......

clevin
Mar 23, 2009, 06:13 PM
Yes, im sure they implement standards "for bragging rights"......
figure out difference between standard and items of the standard first.

pdxflint
Mar 23, 2009, 10:29 PM
I had a very expensive subscription to Investor's Business Daily, and access to their analysis tools on the web (charts and other tech stuff.) It requires Windows XP or later, and IE to work. When I switched back to Mac, I found that I was unwilling to simply bend over, and install Windows on my Mac so I could keep paying several hundred dollars/year for this 'service.' So, I canceled my subscription. When their (IBD) very persistant sales people kept calling me to re-instate my subscription, I was finally able to get them to understand that I now was using a Mac, and had no intentions of going out of my way to use their product, since they chose not to use open standards and I no longer had a Windows PC. I may be in the minority of computer users out there in the big world, thus not worth them taking the time or expense to make their product compatible with me as a customer, but I still was spending good money with them, and now I'm not. Their reps clearly know why I'm done spending cash with them. Another case of losing a customer due to adherance to MS exclusive standards. When there are enough of us, maybe things will change. In the meantime, I don't miss them at all, and am happily exploring alternatives to their publication, of which there are plenty.

IE 8... who cares?

Analog Kid
Mar 24, 2009, 02:06 AM
W3C, not WC3, and acid 3 test is NOT officially constructed by W3C.
First, if only to minimize your flamable cross section, I'd suggest being really careful in proofreading your own posts if you're going to criticize typos in others.
When you selectively implement one out of a dozen items in a standard just to brag about passing acid3, what help does it do to web developers? zippo.

IE 8 does pass acid2, the progress should be recognized. even a small step.
What are the other 11 items of the standard that weren't implemented by webkit?

If implementing some of a standard, but not all of it, does "zippo" to help web developers then why should we recognize the small step achieved by IE8?

clevin
Mar 24, 2009, 06:31 AM
First, if only to minimize your flamable cross section, I'd suggest being really careful in proofreading your own posts if you're going to criticize typos in others.

What are the other 11 items of the standard that weren't implemented by webkit?

If implementing some of a standard, but not all of it, does "zippo" to help web developers then why should we recognize the small step achieved by IE8?

why? because acid 2 is a much more elegantly designed product and does do the work.

zippo is kind enough, confusion might be a better word.

not "some", but "4%". Im fine with half half, opera did 80%, good for them, but 4%? read here (http://blog.codedread.com/archives/2008/03/26/webkit-nightly-not-smiling/)

BongoBanger
Mar 24, 2009, 07:58 AM
Sadly no-one in business really cares about the academic standards set by W3C. IE is the dominant commercial platform so sites are generally written for IE first and other browsers thereafter.

IE doesn't have to conform to these standards because they don't have to.

Sad but true.

pdjudd
Mar 24, 2009, 08:23 AM
IE doesn't have to conform to these standards because they don't have to.

Umm, That statement doesn't mean anything - its circular. I think you meant to say: "IE doesn't have to conform to those standards because their market dominance ensures that people will design web pages with their dominance in mind"

That statement is much more accurate - the fact that IE still has such a large market share is not lost on some web designers who know that 90% percent of the world (windows users) can access their site - thats enough for them and doesn't require much thought. It's why many many other desktop technologies are Windows based. Three words: 90% market share.

Analog Kid
Mar 24, 2009, 01:05 PM
why? because acid 2 is a much more elegantly designed product and does do the work.

zippo is kind enough, confusion might be a better word.
Step back and look at your argument. The four browsers discussed here are all passing Acid2, so that's a plus for IE. Webkit and Opera appear to be the only two that can pass Acid3, so that's bad for Webkit. I'm really not following here, mate.
not "some", but "4%". Im fine with half half, opera did 80%, good for them, but 4%? read here (http://blog.codedread.com/archives/2008/03/26/webkit-nightly-not-smiling/)
Ok, now you're just wasting our time... The article you link shows the results of a nightly build from a year ago.

This page (http://www.codedread.com/svg-support.php), linked to by the very post you provided, shows Webkit has been scoring over 80% for the last 7 months. No tests of Safari4 yet because the table hasn't been updated since January.

This is why it's becoming impossible to have an intelligent discussion in these forums lately-- doing an "I'm feeling lucky" search on Google and posting the link is not support for an argument.

MisterMe
Mar 24, 2009, 01:14 PM
... IE is the dominant commercial platform so sites are generally written for IE first and other browsers thereafter.

IE doesn't have to conform to these standards because they don't have to.

Sad but true.Maybe, maybe not. The thing that you are missing is that this is 2009, not 1999.

The world of 1999 saw the Browsers Wars fought by Internet Explorer from a commanding position against a Netscape Navigator trying to hang on to relevancy. Even though IE remains the biggest fish in the sea in 2009, it has negative momentum. Netscape Communicator has been supplanted by Mozilla Firefox. Other players such as Safari and Opera have entered the fray. Their rise comes directly out of IE's hide.

Back in 1999, the web was accessed almost exclusively from a desktop or laptop computer. There are other options today. Smart cell phones provide a rapidly rising segment of Web users. The dominant smartphone is Apple's iPhone which features Safari. The iPhone has many competitors, many of which are not based on Windows Moble. You also have the new netbooks, many of which are based on Linux. They don't use IE, either.

The headline that IE 8 failed the Acid3 Test follows several years of declining browser share. One of the reasons that Microsoft has lost share is that it does not play well with others. This is more of the same. Microsoft will not regain lost position by continuing to do the things that caused its slide in the first place.

Long story short, there are many potential customers out here in the Real World who don't use IE. We can't be ignored by forward-thinking businesses. No doubt, there are backward-thinking businesses that will ignore us, but they will do so at their own peril.

danny_w
Mar 24, 2009, 03:50 PM
...Long story short, there are many potential customers out here in the Real World who don't use IE. We can't be ignored by forward-thinking businesses. No doubt, there are backward-thinking businesses that will ignore us, but they will do so at their own peril.
The reverse is also true. For example, Apple chose to use a web platform for MobileMe that leaves out IE almost entirely. This means a lot of lost sales for Apple, as a lot of people have no choice but to use IE at work. In addition, anybody relying on hotel computers for internet access will be almost completely out of luck with MobileMe (not everybody takes a laptop with them when they travel, you know). This has incensed a lot of users, and for what? Would it really be that hard for them to do a dumbed-down version for those that must use IE? Besides, I see absolutely no advantage to the current implementation that competitors (that are IE compliant) don't have, at least right now.

MisterMe
Mar 24, 2009, 07:50 PM
... This means a lot of lost sales for Apple, as a lot of people have no choice but to use IE at work. ...In less than two years, Apple has gone from nowhere to the dominant manufacturer of smartphones. Everyone else is now trying to ape Apple. To speculate about the sales that it might have had in light of Apple's spectacular success in this new market for our favorite fruit company seems a bit silly.

PeterQC
Mar 24, 2009, 08:53 PM
I don't care about IE8. It's just the worst closed-souce apps I've ever used. It feel great to be on Firefox now. What's really frustrating if how Microsoft force you to use IE to be used to get updates from their site for their OS (Bootcamp!) if you don't want to use their unreliable software updater.