Opera Lays Down Acid2 Challenge 499
sebFlyte writes "The CTO of Opera has proposed a new version of the acid test for browser compatibility, and has challenged Microsoft to make IE7 a browser worth having that will do the Web good. He's asked to help from Web designers the world over to build a new page for Microsoft to test IE7 with to make sure it does everything Web designers want it to. "
Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:2)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:2)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:2)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:3, Interesting)
That one isn't anywhere near as bad as the times when the entire page content is shifted one screen width to the right, but it still annoys me very much, and happens almost every time, whereas the page shifting bug only happens I would say 1/20 times as a rough estimate.
It's not hard to create valid pages that render differently in different browsers [curtman.mine.nu]. I just want to know why.
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:2)
That must be why I've never seen it. Unless the big slashdot/firefox bug is the little bit of text overlap that occasionally shows up on the left hand menu.
I am using AdBlock to block http://ads.osdn.com/* so that would also block any iframes that might be screwing up the display even worse.
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:5, Interesting)
View the source on any Slashdot web page and observe the gigantic, sloppy cluster-fuck that is their output. Do not blame Gecko for this nightmare of deeply nested tables, font tags, missing close tags, and other crap. (What's funny is that Slashdot gives an HTTP 403 to validator.w3.org.) When Slashdot makes their code sane, then we can blame the browser. It's amazing to me that any user agent can parse this and make sense of it.
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:5, Informative)
What's funny is that Slashdot gives an HTTP 403 to validator.w3.org
I saved the source of this comment page and fed it to the validator. Made 117 errors, among them a fairly serious one:
Line 2007, column 7: end tag for "TABLE" omitted, but its declaration does not permit this
It also has _tons_ of unclosed LI tags. These obviously can mess up the display quite a lot. Except for that, the errors are mainly cosmetic - & instead of & and some spurious attributes which aren't in the 3.2 standard (nobr, iframe height etc.).
The missing </table> is probably the most serious issue.
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is obviously starting to show here, write sites to the standard and browsers will follow.
Hrrrmpph! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hrrrmpph! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:2, Funny)
get SlashFix (Score:3, Informative)
http://hardgrok.org/blog/item/slashfix-firefox-ex
This is a firefox extension that fixes the strange rendering that Slashdot's broken html creates.
Re:Like say the same joke everytime? (Score:2)
Re:Like say the same joke everytime? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Like say the same joke everytime? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes, IE renders bad HTML well (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not meant to be an attack on IE. If reasonable assumptions can be made about what the code should do, even when coded incorrectly, then it's great that IE does this. I'm not sure of any specific examples, but when I first started writing web pages (years ago), I remember that Netscape would cough on some pages that IE rendered well. Invariably, the problem was that I had left off some terminating tags, and IE correctly figured out my intentions.
Three caveats:
First, having Netscape scold me allowed me to fix my code. IMHO, a better way to do this, however, would be to have an option called "pedantic" that would insist on matching tags (where appropriate). This might exist now, and if so, that's great.
Second, trying to "guess" what was intended is rife with problems. Anyone who has used MS Word for long enough knows what I mean.
Finally, I currently use FireFox the vast majority of the time. I do not know if any of what I said is still true.
Re:Sometimes, IE renders bad HTML well (Score:4, Insightful)
Compilers shouldn't compile broken code.
If, as a programmer, you think that a compiler is better because it will compile buggy code without errors then god help you.
The same applies to web design. Buggy HTML might render OK as just HTML, but once you start adding CSS into the equation (and IE has its OWN little array of bugs here) then it can start causing severely bizarre behavior.
Re:Sometimes, IE renders bad HTML well (Score:3, Informative)
Compilers shouldn't compile broken code
Compilers shouldn't, because their user is a developer and he can (and should) fix the problems. But browsers should indeed render broken code, or make a best effort thereof. It's called graceful failure and it's a very important characteristic of production-strength software.
The user of the browser isn't the web page developer, and he isn't interested in the minuties of CSS and W3C standards. The user wants to see the page,
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing dumb about it. Micrsoft has thumbed their nose at standards for the past 10 years, and the mess that is web standards is due mostly in part to the way IE (with > 90% marketshare) fails to adhere to those standards. Oh, and btw, if you haven't forgotten: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist [usdoj.gov] in more than one continent [washingtonpost.com]. That means i
Re:Like, render Slashdot the same way every time? (Score:3)
Agreed. What's surprising is that this apparently hasn't already been done. Or has it?
It seems to me that creating such a page should go along with setting the standards in the first place. I mean, when the w3c settles on a standard, don't they create example code and explanations for how things should be rendered? When developers are creating their HTML renderers, don't they test out there renderer against some sort of pa
Go SlashFix (Score:2)
-Em
Why just microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Implementing full standards would help (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Implementing full standards would help (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Implementing full standards would help (Score:3, Informative)
6_16-BF-01 Frame Target Names (part C/D/F
(puts it in the D window)
7_4_2-BF-02 The
Re:Implementing full standards would help (Score:2)
16_2_2-BF-03 The FRAME element (depends - no scrollbars are shown on scrolling="no", but wheel still scrolls it)
18_2_1-BF-02 The SCRIPT element (fails)
18_2_3-BF-14 Intrinsic events (fails)
Whew...
However, there is no CSS test suite, or a JavaScript test suite (some JavaScript is tested in this, but not much).
Validator (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, my opinion would be that the browser should, like, make pages look really cool, even if they are really badly made, and do, like, lots of cool stuff.
Why can't they do what I want? I mean, I made a web page, and it looks crap in all the browser I've tried.
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:2)
That's called the
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the one for xHTML 1.0 [w3.org]. The one that currently has IE in my doghouse is CSS2 support, especially the Box Model. Firefox gets it right. Opera gets it right. But IE gets it totally wrong, forcing web designers to use unsightly hacks to get CSS to behave the same way in IE.
The web community has always had this consensus, going back to HTML 3.2 and even further back. It's the browser makers that can't seem to come to a consensus, which is ridiculous because the W3C tells you how a user agent should behave.
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why just Microsoft? Because they're the
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:2)
I can't answer your question but I can tell you that it is very seldom that I have to fire up another browser because Opera isn't rendering properly.
Normally I wouldn't bring it up, but I seriously doubt the sites I visit even consider testing with Opera.
Re:Why just microsoft? [Everybody sucks sometimes] (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, no.
Even if someone makes a browser that does everything designers AND developers want it to, it still won't do any good to those of us stuck supporting browsers that DON'T do all of it. The entire world is unlikely to switch instantly to the new wonder browser, leaving us to support legacy products.
Where I work our top tier browser/OS matrix is:
Win 98 - XP; IE5>, Mozilla 1.3>, Firefox 1>, Netscape 6.2>
Linux; Mozilla 1.3>, Firefox 1>, Netscape 6.2>
Mac OSX; Safari, IE
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Web people have worked very hard to come up with standards (MS is even on committees in some of these areas). Standards make it easier for someone to create something once and not have to worry about what platforms it works on. One of the hardest parts of any web developer's job is to troubleshoot why webapp X won't work in browser Y. Thankfully, IE is pretty much there with the DOM, but CSS support is still lacking, and it's riddled with rendering bugs.
Re:Why just microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
"acid" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"acid" (Score:2)
The acid test should answer the question... (Score:5, Funny)
Why Bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's deal with the joking option first:
Internet Explorer may not be the best browser, but it's the one most individuals (read: people who buy computers from CompUSA/Dell) are likely to use - simply because it's there and it's supported.
Now the moron option:
"Slowly but surely" is the most bullshit phrase in the English language. A pretty strong argument could be made that the Internet Explorer crisis is at its peak right now. It has had a number of years as the fr
Re:Why Bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the late seventies, early eighties the same thing was said about Atari, there were better alternatives back then but everyone wrote games for the 2600 any
Meanwhile..... (Score:4, Funny)
Standards, schmandards... (Score:4, Insightful)
Next!
Re:Standards, schmandards... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Standards, schmandards... (Score:3, Insightful)
I use the term "goods" loosely, here seeing as MS stuff should be termed "bads"
But when you can get the same stuff for free, then the customer who pays is usually refered to as gullible, and the seller is often refered to as a con man.
Don't they have laws against cons?
Oh, wait, that law only applies to the little guys who con.
Big guys who con are refered to as successfull monopolies.
Never mind.
Re:Standards, schmandards... (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, IE had 90% of the market. It no longer does. The problem with the monopoly position is that it makes MS complacent. If your browser is free, installed on almost every PC sold, and is the standard that most developers code to (even when it violates the W3C spec), then you really have to suck before people besides hard core geeks switch to something else. Once that starts happening, it means you've been sucking hard for a good long time and you've got a lot of catching up to do in terms of features and good will.
Great Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great Strategy (Score:2)
I want IE7 to... (Score:4, Funny)
Err, oh. I guess that that was not a valid choice.
Why take up the gauntlet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, perhaps if FireFox continues to chew up the percentages of web browser usage, they might try it for PR purposes, but that's hardly an issue at the moment. Microsoft is more of an in-the-moment company (unless you're speaking of up-and-coming products, where they announce competing programs years before they actually plan to implement the changes).
Re:Why take up the gauntlet? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is important, because if Opera, Safari, Firefox, Konqueror, et. al. all render it fairly closely, and IE mangles it, you then have a story. CNet will run it, CNN will ru
My proposal for the test page. (Score:5, Funny)
Get Firefox! [getfirefox.com]
If it can properly render that link, I'll be satisfied.
Re:My proposal for the test page. (Score:3, Funny)
Worked fine for me [xenoveritas.org], what problem did you have with it?
Test suites (Score:4, Interesting)
It would take... (Score:2)
Re:It would take... (Score:2)
PS, it all could be done in one page, since no test excludes another, AFAIK. It'd just be one bitch of a webpage to code, to load, and to read the results from.
Yeah, so... (Score:2, Insightful)
And let's not be smug about everyone but Microsoft following standards. The company I used to work for had a file-upload javascript that worked with Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, and IE, but it didn't work with Safari and we had to specially recode the script just to accomodate that Safari quirk.
It would be nice
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
US challenged China to be most democratic country
blah blah
Mod me down as troll, but what makes anyone think M$ cares about a challenge from a competitor?!
Slashdot != xhtml (Score:2, Interesting)
wasting time? (Score:2)
Let the other browser creators build a site, publisize it and ashame M$. This might work but no guarantees.
Double Edged Sword (XMLHttpRequest?) (Score:2)
I've been an Opera supporter for years, but at some point it must become evident that Hakon Wium Lie (and other Opera employees) are simply venting frustration.
While I think the acid test is great, Opera has been uncharacteristically silent on getting XMLHttpRequest up to the Firefox/Safari/IE level. I know Opera will tell you "it is coming in version 8", but I thought the position of the one commerical browser of the bunch was to lead, not follow.
P.S. Why do all the Fire/zilla mouse gesture packages us
Wrong target (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the malicious [opera.com] ones who miscode their site to intentionally over-support a browser.
I support Hakon, but I think he's aiming at the wrong spot.
Caveat: I have used (and liked) Opera since version 3 or so. I am have used (and hated) IE since version 2 or so. I am hardly unbiased.
Lost cause? (Score:2)
Full, proper CSS support (including complex selectors) is just a start. We also very much need it to support standards (like support the <abbr> tag, not just <acronym>), including standard voice+xml technology as well (but I can't see that happen). If they don't use the same things as the rest of the world will use for that,
Why would Microsoft care? (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't need them to drop acid (Score:3, Funny)
We need them to learn to read specs!
The Issue... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people are not familiar with the nuances of CSS2.
Most people are not aware of the various published spec's from W3.
Most people are users.
Most users use IE.
Most people percieve "what the web can do" to be what they've experienced as "what IE can do."
Most people don't know what they're missing.
"What Microsoft provides" is already the de facto standard for the web. And most designers are resigned to living with this--nobody puts out CSS2 elements that IE does NOT support
Just a thought... (Score:3, Interesting)
In an IE7 world.... (Score:3, Funny)
Opera? Compatibility? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Opera? Compatibility? (Score:4, Informative)
Eric Meyers ComplexSpiral example (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to submit someone elses example page of the horrific way IE6 handles CSS2:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspira l/demo.html [meyerweb.com]
It not only describes what goes wrong, but why, how and where.
Oh: Eric: if you're reading this: Thanks! :)
Some real CSS examples (Score:2, Interesting)
This clearly demonstrates that the "browser war" is really a one(IE)-on-one(Firefox) battle with Opera and others simply choosing which side to mimic.
Microsoft has everything to WIN here, not lose (Score:3, Insightful)
As a result, it chooses to do things like release the XP2 firewall but not offer it for win2k - to push people towards newer versions, despite win2k being in mainstream support.
Recently, they've been forced by the HUGE number of corporate customers to offer WinFS as an option for XP as well as future versions of the OS. Why? Because corporate customers don't run bleeding edge software.
So what they need is a huge, wonderful carrot that will lead customers to the latest version. We arent talking about Dear Old Aunt Sally - she doesn't buy new versions of OS's. She buys a computer, and it comes with it.
We are talking about corporate customers. They didn't buy the concept that WinFS couldn't work on XP, but Microsoft has been shouting (even swearing in court) that the browser is part of the OS.
As a result, MS could very easily make IE7 only available on longhorn. As such, it's an opportunity for them to make it a selling point - a carrot.
To make the carrot more attractive, they need to make it do as many things RIGHT as possible. If IE7 truly supported css2, png transparency, javascript, and so on, WEBDESIGNERS would start drawing the line at older versions of IE - doing Microsoft's selling for them!
Businesses, portals, and the list goes on - anywhere that wants to make a truly compelling site without a million css box model hacks would start suggesting users use IE7, and before long, REQUIRING IE7.
Microsoft has every reason in the world to kick major standards-ass with IE7, but unfortunately, they have a track record of not doing it.
Here's hoping that their business savy is more powerful than their laziness.
The problem...as I see it (Score:3, Interesting)
A good example would be something along the lines of this (a response from an actual discussion I took part in, the funny thing was I wasn't trying to tell anyone anything about the W3C or the importance of standards, I just asked a question about a script that was acting strange in Firefox, my current platform of choice): Admittedly this is an extreme example, but I believe it is representative of a broader belief that might makes right. Firefox/Mozilla/Opera/Safari are still a relatively small ripple and there are some stodgy people out there who at best, simply don't care if their code works on a minority browser.
Until it hits their pocket-books thats not going to change. The pressure needs to be put on businesses so that when say Bank AAA gets a site built that can't/doesn't support your browser (because of non-standard code created by people either too stubborn or too lazy to spend the extra 3 seconds to create/read about browser-friendly code) they hear about it. Maybe even lose some customers.
Then our friendly web-developer can come back and learn how to fix his/her code. If that happens enough they'll get tired of doing it the old way and maybe play nice from the get-go.
FTR, the code we were discussing in the the above quoted passaged did get fixed, by me and I have about 2 weeks of javascript programming under my belt (and if your wondering about the preceding conversation, no, I wasn't impolite or anything like that, I'm too old to pull that kind of crap).
Re:IE not worth caring about (Score:2, Informative)
So maybe a few people.
Re:IE not worth caring about (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would anyone care about the experience of 90% (or whatever) of the site's users?
Re:IE not worth caring about (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IE not worth caring about (Score:2)
Many organizations have IE as the standard and build internal applications that work with no other Browser. Re-engineering and re-implementing these systems would be a costly and probably lengthy process.
That would simply not fly since most people are of the min "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
Broken? (Score:2)
Tell that to Linux / Mac users who try to use the system. But I get your point...people who design to IE only aren't worried about standards. To them, IE is the standard.
opera? bloatware? sinks? .. that reminds me... (Score:3, Funny)
it's not over till the fat browser sinks, eh?
haha, I kill me... *snicker*
Re:Opera? (Score:2)
Re:Opera (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. However, Opera is falling behind in mindshare now that FireFox has all the buzz. So the best thing for Opera to do is to put up a standards challenge to Microsoft.
That accomplishes two things: (1) some free PR for Opera, and (2) if anyone really follows through with it, it is far easier for Opera to adapt to the results than Microsoft. Opera has only a miniscule installed base that it needs to stay compatible with.
Re:Opera (Score:2)
Re:Opera (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on that I don't see what's laughable.
Depends on your standards. (Score:2)
Indeed. (Score:2)
Re:Opera is already dead. (Score:5, Informative)
Any money they make from people sitting in front of desktops is just bonus.
Re:Opera is already dead. (Score:2)
I have no problems with Opera tooting their horn, but people need to understand that Opera is not FOSS / Open Source / Next To God. They are a commercial product just like Microsoft, looking to tap into a market. There is nothing wrong with that, but they are not the Holy Open Source Application. Just a nice company. With a quirky funny web app.
Re:Opera is already dead. (Score:3, Interesting)
And, I've heard Opera's biggest moneymaker is NOT the desktop, where one can pay $0 and get text ads instead. It's mobile, where they're the only good game in town on some OSes (and they're working on Windows Smartphone - Pocket PC and Palm will be the only major OSes lacking Opera).