Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software The Internet IT

Acid3 Test Released 309

Posted by Zonk
from the new-is-better-than-old dept.
An anonymous reader writes ""The Web Standards Project has announced the release of Acid3, the latest test designed to expose flaws in the implementation of mature Web standards in browsers. 'By making sure their software adheres to the test, the creators of these products can be more confident that their software will display and function with Web pages correctly both now and with Web pages of the future. The Acid3 Test is designed to test specifications for Web 2.0, and exposes potential flaws in implementations of the public ECMAScript 262 and W3C Document Object Model 2 standards.' Screenshots at the Drunken Fist site show the success of Safari 3 (which originally scored 31, but is now Scoring 87/100) IE6, and IE7 (massive fail, of course)'." There are additional discussions of the new test happening around the web.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Acid3 Test Released

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:43PM (#22654794)
    It gets... 17. Heard at Microsoft "ACID3? We just passed ACID2! AH CRAP!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273)
      At least that beta doesn't crash. When I ran on a recent Opera 9.50 beta build, it counted, stalled, stalled, crashed. ;-)
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        At least that beta doesn't crash. When I ran on a recent Opera 9.50 beta build, it counted, stalled, stalled, crashed. ;-)

        What OS? Opera 9.5 beta works fine for me on OS X and gets 59/100. The only things that crashed for me were Shiira on OS X and Konquerer 3.5.2 on Kubuntu.

        Note, the best score I'm getting is from Safari 3.0.4 with a nightly Webkit on OS X, with a score of 86/100.

    • by jimbojw (1010949) <wilson...jim...r@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @07:13PM (#22656806) Homepage
      Hey now, at least it passes the reference rendering, which is more than I can say for some browsers (*cough* lynx *cough*)
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hmallett (531047)
        Lynx spoils you. I prefer wget.
  • Error establishing a database connection

    That was fast. Even for slashdot.

  • Too late for IE8? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by riceboy50 (631755)
    This might be coming onto the scene a little bit too late in order to complain about the upcoming IE8 not passing the test. It's a shame that this didn't come out last year.
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      If they actually implemented the standards well, they wouldn't have to worry about specific tests, they would just do well on them by default. Now I don't think that any browser does 100% on Acid 3, but I think a lot of them do fairly well.
      • by Goaway (82658)
        None of them do "well". The test is specifically designed to break them all.
      • Re:Too late for IE8? (Score:5, Informative)

        by edwdig (47888) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:49PM (#22655748)
        If they actually implemented the standards well, they wouldn't have to worry about specific tests, they would just do well on them by default.

        Have you ever tried reading the HTML/CSS specs? They're huge and often vaguely worded. There were often sections that just weren't intuitive, and the only real approach to implementing them was to just figure out what other browser did and copy it. The specs were created by people who have no intention of implementing them themselves, and it really shows.
  • Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BlowHole666 (1152399)

    success of Safari 3 (which originally scored 31, but is now Scoring 87/100) IE6, and IE7 (massive fail, of course)'."
    Umm what did Firefox get on this? What about Opera? If you are going to report something why not report all the facts. You listed three browsers where are the other two+ ?
    • Re:Firefox (Score:5, Informative)

      by brunascle (994197) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:50PM (#22654918)
      the test is here [acidtests.org].

      i'm getting a 50/100 in Firefox.
    • Re:Opera (Score:5, Informative)

      by wile_e_wonka (934864) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:55PM (#22654998)
      I just tried it on Opera 9.5 Beta, build 9755. I got a 60/100. Then I tried again and got a 61/100. Then a 60/100 on a third try.

      All of the rectangles are grey (two different shades), the test name is red and does not have a shadow, and there is an x in the upper right hand corner.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273)
      Ooh, my Opera 9.50 weekly actually didn't crash this time. Maybe the test was changed, or something in Opera did.

      Anyway, Opera 9.50.9807 receives a 65.
    • Re:Firefox (Score:5, Interesting)

      by caerwyn (38056) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:57PM (#22655036)
      Interestingly, I'm not getting an 87 with Safari 3.0.4- I'm getting a 39.
      • Re:Firefox (Score:5, Informative)

        by dal20402 (895630) * <dal20402.mac@com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @06:53PM (#22656544) Journal

        It's misleading for the summary to say "Safari" gets 87/100 when the version of Safari that does that is not yet released.

        Run current WebKit nightlies to get the high score now. The changes will be in the upcoming Safari 3.1 release.

    • In firefox 2 the test shows a red picture of a cat.

      Very interesting. I also got a 50/100. The rectangles are all messed up--they're gray, stacked vertically, and each rectangle is the width of the test. The test name also has no shadow.
      • Acid 2 showed the same picture with firefox, though I thought it was a rabbit.

        When these Acid tests are 'testing', is anyone else reminded of Fry playing the holophonor, without worms?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CrazedWalrus (901897)
      I was wondering the same thing. Isn't it FF3 that just began rendering ACID2 correctly?

      Besides, I see these as a process or goal -- giving the browser makers something concrete and visual to shoot for, as well as an easy way for users to judge the quality of their browser of choice. If the thing was just released, I'm not really surprised that many of the browsers don't pass it completely. Now a year or two from now is a different story, after the browser makers have had some time to address the issues the
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zerocool^ (112121)

        Besides, I see these as a process or goal -- giving the browser makers something concrete and visual to shoot for, as well as an easy way for users to judge the quality of their browser of choice.

        Bullshit. The Acid tests have become the SAT's of the browser world. People *think* it's a measure of how standards compliant your browser is, but all it *really* is, is a measure of how well your browser does on the acid test.

        That's it, nothing more, nothing less. The acid test is incredibly nit-picky and it's
  • Firefox 2.0.0.12 (Score:3, Informative)

    by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:49PM (#22654898) Journal
    I get a 51/100 with firefox 2....wonder how 3 will do.
    • Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (Score:5, Informative)

      by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:53PM (#22654952) Homepage
      3b3 gets a 61. Opera 9.5 is the best I tested at 65. Safarai 3.0.4 for Windows got a 39. IE7 got a 12 and also managed to mangle the page the most.
      • Re:Firefox 2.0.0.12 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:01PM (#22655096) Journal

        Opera 9.5 is the best I tested at 65.
        It better be good, since Håkon Wium Lie, Chief Technical Officer of Opera Software, worked together with Bert Bos to develop the CSS standard.

        I'm not sure how many actually knows this. *shrug*
      • Firefox 3 beta 4 gets 66. I've heard that webkit snapshots get even more.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        3b3 gets a 61. Opera 9.5 is the best I tested at 65. Safarai 3.0.4 for Windows got a 39. IE7 got a 12 and also managed to mangle the page the most.

        Your numbers are quite different than mine. I scripted all the browsers/OS's I had handy from the sunspider javascript test last week and ran them on Acid3. The results are here [slashdot.org].

        Where do you get a nightly of Opera? I ran the beta version they have up tonight and got 59/100 on OS X and it crashed on Linux and Windows XP. In any case, the best number I got was Safari 3.0.4 with a week old nightly of Webkit on OS X, which got 86/100. The Firefox 3 beta also did well getting 67/100 on OS X and Linux (but onl

    • 58/100 with Firefox 3 beta 3.
    • by thornomad (1095985) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:55PM (#22655000)
      Woo hoo! IE 6.0 displays this just fine: http://acid3.acidtests.org/reference.html [acidtests.org] Read 'em and weep Firefox!
  • by I kan Spl (614759) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:51PM (#22654930) Homepage
    Why does slashdot keep linking to dead blogs?

    The actual test is http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org] here.
    • Slashdot linked to a well known blog because they had screenshots of several major browsers to save the readers some time, or show results for those who don't have access to other browsers.

      I visit drunkenfist quite often, and this is the first time they've been down. Somehow I think the two are related

    • by jez9999 (618189)
      For some reason, acid2. and acid3. respond, but acid1. times out. *shrug*
  • by Fozzyuw (950608) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:54PM (#22654982)
    My browser won't render the page properly.
  • by The Ancients (626689) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @04:55PM (#22654994) Homepage

    90/100 [mothership.co.nz].

    Getting pretty close.

    • Not bad. Unfortunately I couldn't get the webkit nightly to load the page, probably for unrelated reasons. The latest trunk build of Firefox gets 66, which is an improvement from 61 in Firefox 3 Beta 3.
      • I got it to load twice in the latest nightly of WebKit just now and scored 85/100 both times. That's pretty impressive, in my opinion and one of the reasons I use WebKit as my primary browser these days.

        Unfortunately, the server is still timing out when I try to view the reference image.
    • Not to mention... (Score:3, Informative)

      by rsborg (111459)
      The latest webkit (Safari) nightly is just amazingly fast.

      Faster than FF3 beta 4, much much faster than FF2 or IE7.

  • Failure (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mrbah (844007)
    The Acid tests would be a lot more productive if they were oriented more towards the practical non-compliance issues than obscure ones. A back-asswards JavaScript implementation or a horrible box model is more of an issue than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup. Total compliance is great, but it's much more pragmatic to get the fundamental issues fixed first.
    • by Qzukk (229616)
      than the inability to display base64 images encoded directly into the page markup

      Trust me, that one could actually become fairly important, depending on how large the image could be. I've got scripts that produce reports where right now it takes several seconds of database grinding just to give me the table of data and then several seconds again when the browser hits the script in the <img> tag to get the graph, if I could calculate the table once and produce the graph at the same time and insert the
  • 57/100 :-( I really was expecting more.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      ... and 64/100 for Firefox 3.0b5pre ("Minefield")
    • Re:Firefox 3 beta 3 (Score:4, Informative)

      by BZ (40346) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:47PM (#22655710)
      Why? The test expressly picked things that one of Opera, Safari, and Firefox would fail, preferably more than one, and tried to balance the number of tests each would fail.

      Put another way it looked really hard for things to test that would give browsers low scores.

      There's nothing to say that the things it tests are necessarily useful. Some are, some are not.
    • The Acid tests are not made to pat browser vendors on the back. They exist to show areas in the standards that still aren't covered well. Browsers should fail when the test is first released. that shows that the people making the tests have done their job right by covering areas that are still spotty when it comes to implementation.

      Of course, there's the fact that the browser which made Web standards famous will be the very last non-IE browser to pass Acid2, despite having had over two years to fix the issu
  • Konqueror (Score:5, Informative)

    by kevmatic (1133523) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:04PM (#22655144)
    I haven't seen anybody answer konqueror yet!

    I tried it in Konqi 3.5.8 with Gentoo. It asked me what I wanted to do with "empty.txt" then segfaulted. Anyone fairing better?
  • Slashdoted (Score:5, Funny)

    by fluch (126140) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:09PM (#22655204)
    Conclusion: ACID3 test didn't pass Slashdot test. Too bad.
  • by Lobais (743851) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:21PM (#22655340)
    See http://browsershots.org/http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [browsershots.org] for the test in 75 different browsers.
    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 [wikipedia.org] also lists the results for the developversions of browsers:
    Webkit: 87
    Firefox: 67
  • Firefox (Score:4, Funny)

    by zulater (635326) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:21PM (#22655344)
    I got a 100/100 on the reference image.
  • by Przemo-c (1010877) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:27PM (#22655434)
    Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 with thunderbrowse scores 52/100 ;]
  • by spacemky (236551) * <nick@ary[ ]com ['fi.' in gap]> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:31PM (#22655480) Homepage Journal
    I got a 100% score rendering Acid3 on IE8! All I had to do was add the following line to the top of the page!

    <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=8" />

    Once that meta tag is there, all web pages look just as they're supposed to! I'm so glad Microsoft finally fixed this whole compatibility fiasco.
  • Web 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tatsh (893946) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @05:35PM (#22655536)
    Someone again try to explain to me the definition of web 2.0, and don't tell me flash.

    I personally think it's the move of the entire web (the content that matters) to valid XHTML, CSS, etc (of course everything is controlled dynamically by PHP/Perl/whatever you want). I also hope there can be an open standard soon to do the same functionality that Youtube's Flash container that runs on everything and that everyone agrees upon. Silverlight is obviously closed and so is Flash. We need an open source mid-quality (and high-quality) video player that loads quickly and is OS-independent, just like Flash. I think that is all that is missing in this 'Web 2.0'.
    • Here's my definition of Web 2.0 (NOTE: Your definition may vary)

      I refer to Web 2.0 as user generated content. I define user generated content pretty broadly as well. This isn't just YouTube videos and MySpace pages. This is the ability of the user to use the web to dynamically create content on the web, whether it's uploading a video to a public site, creating their own web profile, or typing a research paper using a browser based word processor. The user has the ability to go to a web site and then
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Tatsh (893946)

        "Web 2.0 is a bullshit buzzword made up to describe everything new that is happening on the web. It is mostly meaningless marketing speak. Treat it as such."

        I agree, and thought this ever since I heard the term, so I hereby propose abolishment of the term.

    • Caesar is all things to all men.

      Srsly, tho.. Web2.0 is (supposedly) about cutting out the page refresh in between client actions and content updates. AJAX, SOAP, etc. are obvious examples. Of course, i've heard all types of other descriptions, to the extent that i'm no longer sure of that definition, as inaccessible to the public as the idea was anyway.

      As for the movie player, it's not a particularly good idea to write something like that in a serverside-rendered language.. i guess it'd be possible to wri
    • by jonbryce (703250)
      Web 2.0 is an ajax powered, mash-up paradigim, leveraging user generated content, rich internet applications and software-as-a-service business models. Web 2.0 will transform the connected experience by providing a social networking experience together with a highly personalised content delivery platform.
  • by dskoll (99328) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @06:15PM (#22656052)
    Seriously... if no browser gets 100/100, how do the test creators generate the reference image? And how do they know there are no bugs in their test? I'm genuinely curious...
  • by CodeShark (17400) <ellsworthpc.yahoo@com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @06:17PM (#22656080) Homepage
    Is if there was a way to not only get a copy of the acid test fails, but a quick list of which browsers fail which test and what that should mean. So that us legions of OS coders or even Mozilla, Opera, or Safari's own guys could get busy and fix it in their next releases.

    Anyone have this or know some web location where it's happening?
  • Maybe there should be a slashdot3 test. First client is acid3

    I scored 3/100 here.

    Using Epiphany 2.20.3
  • 38 Safari 3.0.4, 84 Safari Webkit Build 30790
    • I'm scoring 90 with the latest webkit build (30790) (in leopard). I was getting 87 with 30726.
  • Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9b4pre) Gecko/2008030204 nightly build scores 65/100 here
  • by CodeShark (17400) <ellsworthpc.yahoo@com> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @07:22PM (#22656900) Homepage
    Passes 59 tests in Xp. Interesting Stats:
    • 37 of the tests that fail in FF 2.X are also fails in FF 3.0 beta.
    • Three of the fails are significantly different, not sure if this means progress or not
    • 1 fail is a minor difference
    • Firefox 2 passed a test (#69) that FF 3 did not
    • and finally, FF 3.0 passes 8 tests directly that FF 2.0 does not.

      • That said, I looked at a couple of the notes on Bugzilla for Firefox and they are already looking at the bug list... wonder who will be the fastest to fix the most....

  • W3C validator (Score:4, Interesting)

    by atomic-penguin (100835) <wolfe21@marshall. e d u> on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @08:02PM (#22657388) Homepage Journal
    If these acid tests are based on standards. Why is the only acid test that passes the W3C validator, the Acid 1 test?

    1. Acid 1 [w3.org]
    2. Acid 2 [w3.org]
    3. Acid 3 [w3.org]


    Perhaps, I am missing the point of these acid tests. I'm not a web developer by trade, so I don't claim to be an expert on CSS. From personal experience, CSS has allowed me to use much less complex HTML in the little web publishing I have done. I never seem to get consistent results when I test my pages in different browsers. I hope that these "standards" Acid tests lead to greater compatibility across browsers.

    Do these tests increase compatibility by pushing the envelope on new standards, or are they just a browser-war pissing contest?
    • Re:W3C validator (Score:5, Informative)

      by Millennium (2451) on Wednesday March 05, 2008 @10:58PM (#22658920) Homepage
      If these acid tests are based on standards. Why is the only acid test that passes the W3C validator, the Acid 1 test?

      Because more recent Web standards include sections on how certain kinds of errors are supposed to be handled. These need to be tested just like everything else, but up until Acid2 many browsers weren't very good about that.

      Remember, the point of Acid tests is to be a thorn in browser developers' sides: find areas of the standard that no one currently does well and test for them. Browsers shouldn't pass Acid tests when the tests first come out: that would be missing the point of the tests in the first place.

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.

Working...