W3C Says IE9 Is Currently the Most HTML5 Compatible Browser 382
GIL_Dude writes "The W3C posted results for their latest HTML5 compatibility tests and have found that, so far, IE 9 has the best overall results. 'The tests cover seven aspects of the spec: "attributes," "audio," "video," "canvas," "getElementsByClassName," "foreigncontent," and "xhtml5." The tests do not yet cover web workers, the file API, local storage, or other aspects of the spec. Not do they cover CSS or other standards that have nothing to do with HTML5 but are somehow lumped under HTML5 by the likes of Apple, Google, and Microsoft.'"
Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Funny)
Consistency is all I ask
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Funny)
Will consistency in inconsistency suffice?
Or consistently inconsistent
Re: (Score:2)
Are those my only two choices?
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Agreed.
Chrome doesn't support freaking cut-and-paste within Slashdot comments. Seriously WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Works fine for me, in Chrome on Linux and Chrome on Mac OS X. Maybe you have an extension that's adgering it?
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or doesn't work properly if you have JS disabled since they removed or disabled the old comment controls. In a similar vein, the W3C test results are presented via some javascript crud. Assuming that is that the visitor has it enabled.
A lot of website functionality is built with JavaScript - that's just a fact of life. You don't have to enable it, but you really can't complain when websites don't cater to the small minority of users who either disable or block all scripts. We're trying to get sites not to support the dying number of IE6 users, and I'd be willing to bet the % of users not using JS is even lower than IE6 users. If all sites were simply written in HTML there would be a lot less 'web' out there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of website functionality is built with JavaScript - that's just a fact of life. You don't have to enable it, but you really can't complain when websites don't cater to the small minority of users who either disable or block all scripts.
But you can damn will complain when javascript is used unnecessarily, especially when it's used as a crutch by obviously lazy and/or neophyte developers because their laziness results in their users being unnecessarily exposed to increased security risks. Nobody disables javascript because they want to, they disable it because javascript is the number one source of web browser vulnerabilities by at least an order of magnitude, probably two.
Web developers are (supposed to be) the experts, web users are regu
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody disables javascript because they want to, they disable it because javascript is the number one source of web browser vulnerabilities by at least an order of magnitude, probably two.
No it isn't, not even close. Flash and Acrobat Reader are by far the biggest infection vectors; raw, browser-based JS is positively benign by comparison.
Stuff like making it easier to do tracking cookies and be generally annoying are JS's biggest flaws.
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Anonymous Coward has a stronger case here. Graceful degradation is the way sites are supposed to work. You can't complain when the snazzy stuff doesn't work with JS turned off, but you can complain when basic forms don't work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it's a petty nitpick, but hear me out. There's a reason the more intelligent among front-end web developers ditched the term "graceful degradation" for "progressive enhancement". For all but a minuscule (but growing) portion of possible web tasks, the client-side approach has a direct HTML/HTTP/server-side analog with—if we're doing our jobs right on the client-side—a UI that is less usable and slower. Even though the two philosophies could be implemented the same way, they rarely are. Th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The list of scripts present in a random website is positively scary. It's little wonder that Windows users always get infected with some nonsense. There's no way for a webmaster to control and manage all of the external dependencies present in the sites created by the "screw the minority" crowd.
It's like medical outsourcing out of country where your medical history becomes subject to hijacking or auction.
Every external dependency is another place for management, security and responsibility to fail.
Re:Posting from IE8... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a "brightness" knob on my TV, but that never seems to work either.
--
BMO
Not suprising (Score:5, Funny)
For all the flak IE gets, it's actually a great browser. We all know Microsoft make great products and often take the lead when forced to, and now is no different.
It is also the most secure browser by far, what with its inherent use of MAC, and full DEP and ALSR support. Strange, but true.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No kidding - place I work has to block Chrome, Safari, and Firefox at the firewall since all three have actively exploited zero-day exploits.
But not IE8. It's secure.
And, yes, they also block all versions of IE prior to 8, because those also have actively exploited holes in them, but if there's one thing Microsoft did right in Vista, it's securing IE. Too bad no other browser maker takes advantages of the OS features used to do that.
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Interesting)
No other browser is limited to Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you have people that are running Mac's and IRIX boxes.
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, how about this: Limited to Windows 7 / Vista. That's a much bigger problem for the 50% of us who use Windows XP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lot easier to just not use IE9.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No kidding - place I work has to block Chrome, Safari, and Firefox at the firewall since all three have actively exploited zero-day exploits.
But not IE8. It's secure.
and just in case it's not, there's always lynx for windows ;-)
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not suprising (Score:4, Informative)
Not only that, but I think at least one of the features they're testing is a former IE-ism that's been standardised, and the other browsers have prioritized HTML5 features like local storage that aren't tested here at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're also comparing a development version of a browser to the released versions of other browsers, instead of their development versions. For example, Chromium already passes tests that Chrome failed in the article.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the coverage of the tests, they seem to be pretty close to the features that were tested in Microsoft's own compliance tests, which were then submitted to the W3C for inclusion in the W3Cs test suite.
To highlight this: see here [w3.org].
Notice that the only directory here is "Microsoft"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the official claim was that IE8 fully supports CSS 2.1
Unfortunately, the other official claim at the time was that IE prioritizes interoperability over standards compliance, and the two claims together did not jibe. I've encountered far too many instances where IE 8 was correct and the competitors were correct also, except the standard allowed for differences of interpretation and IE 8 alone took different interpretations.
Moreover, IE 8's biggest gaping hole was not its HTML or CSS support, nor even some of its oddities in ECMAScript, but its utterly disfigure
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For all the flak IE gets, it's actually a great browser..
I don't mind IE at all, and use FF daily too. However I much prefer the text rendering of Safari on both PC and Mac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The text in Firefox always end up like half a point too big compared to Safari, Chrome and Opera.
Re:Not suprising (Score:4, Informative)
That's probably because Firefox supports fractional font sizes: 12.1px, 12.3px, 12.5px...
Every other lunkheaded browser rounds to the nearest whole pixel value. If the site developers use relative font sizes (ems, percents) and don't do precise math, the site ends up with a declared pixel size between values...and only Firefox delivers the declared size.
As a CSS guy, this means I find other browsers infuriating. Now that we have Webfonts I want to render ever piece of text with fonts instead of graphics...but getting a banner to just the right size is often impossible without a fractional font size. As a normal user, it means Firefox more often than not looks "wrong," because it's far enough ahead of the curve to be out front alone.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that I'm not crazy for doing things like declaring 1.15em so they all end up the same size in all browsers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a user, I find any site specifying any font size to be infuriating as they tend to not display properly with my settings. A damn good example of that is /. itself. I've had to push the font size in Firefox to 16pts as the minimum, just to get a readable size on screen. It's the same for many websites and that violates the entire spirit of HTML, which was basic formating yet all of a sudden we're seeing so many sites use damn screwy fonts and sizes just to be different.
+/- tolerances (Score:4, Insightful)
As a CSS guy, this means I find other browsers infuriating. Now that we have Webfonts I want to render ever piece of text with fonts instead of graphics...but getting a banner to just the right size is often impossible without a fractional font size. As a normal user, it means Firefox more often than not looks "wrong," because it's far enough ahead of the curve to be out front alone.
This is the web, not desktop publishing. If you want pixel perfect rendering 100% of the time generate a PDF or PostScript file (or Flash). While CSS has certainly improved the visuals, the sites I like the best are ones that actually still useful when I use lynx/elinks to visit them (e.g., Daring Fireball, Ars Technica).
While I'm a fan of good design, you have the wrong mind set when creating a site if you want the above IMHO. Even in engineering physical things there, are some +/- tolerances; you need to have some "give" in your designs and I think it's true with HTML as well. All of this advanced CSS is nice, but after a certain point you're into the realm of "control freak" designers.
Please remember: web site != desktop publishing. If your layout can't handle a few pixel offset here or there, then it's veered into the realm of "control freak" country.
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Interesting)
As a CSS guy, this means I find other browsers infuriating. Now that we have Webfonts I want to render ever piece of text with fonts instead of graphics...but getting a banner to just the right size is often impossible without a fractional font size. As a normal user ...
As a normal user, I do not want you to have the ability to define exact pixel sizes of fonts, without my ability to override them without completely breaking site layout (which is what will happen if your buttons etc will be designed for a specific size). There are many reasons for why that is the case, but the most obvious one is that I do not want to see tiny, hard-to-read text, and so all my browsers are set up to not allow anything below 13px. Any well-designed website works fine with such an arrangement; if yours does not, I will just go elsewhere.
By the way, one of my personal dislikes with Flash is that there is no way to impose a similar restriction there, and that Flash designers, for some reason, love tiny fonts for menus, buttons and such.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My theory is that a large proportion of Flash "designers" are 13 years old and are "designing" on either some hand-me-down computer that's only capable of running at 800x600, max, or Dad's old work laptop that runs at 1024x800.
Re:Not suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Having access to a 14.5px font has absolutely nothing to do with using 8px font.
GP was complaining about the inability to use fractional-sized fonts in general, and his explanation as to why he needs it is so that he can precision-match text on various UI elements. My point is that his expectation of being able to precision-match text size at all is incompatible with basic accessibility issues, and that any website relying on such tricks is broken for many people.
It doesn't have anything to do with specific font sizes. Mine's minimum is set to 13px because that's what I can read well without squinting on my display. My mother's vision is much worse, so hers is at around 15px or so (I don't recall exactly), so even in a browser which supports fractional font sizes, a webpage requesting 14.5px would not get it.
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought FF and Safari used the same text rendering, on Snow Leopard at least?
Yeah I think you are right (I have them open side-by-side) but I know that MS takes a different approach to rendering than Apple, and I prefer the Apple way
Re: (Score:2)
Apple tries to render the font as precisely as possible.
Microsoft tries to hammer the font into sub-pixels as much as possible. You end up with deformed fonts and edges that are way too sharp.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple tries to render the font as precisely as possible. Microsoft tries to hammer the font into sub-pixels as much as possible. You end up with deformed fonts and edges that are way too sharp.
I have read the arguments for both and in someways the MS one does make sense - still I prefer the look of Safari
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense if all you look at is the pixels themselves, just like it would make sense for the USPS to crush all packages into four inch cubes so they can be shipped more easily. ;)
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Informative)
On Snow Leopard, yes. FireFox uses the platform's native text rendering engine. Safari uses Apple's one wherever it runs. This means that you get Apple's sub-pixel AA instead of Microsoft's ClearType on Windows.
You also get some slightly different glyph positioning. Microsoft tweaks glyph positions by a fraction of a pixel to make them line up more closely with pixel boundaries. This makes individual characters clearer, but means that the spacing between characters looks a bit messed up. Apple renders glyphs exactly where they should be, which means that they often overlap pixel boundaries and need a lot of antialiasing.
If you're used to Microsoft's rendering, Apple's text will look slightly blurry. If you're used to Apple's rendering, Microsoft's will look weirdly spaced.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're used to Microsoft's rendering, Apple's text will look slightly blurry. If you're used to Apple's rendering, Microsoft's will look weirdly spaced.
With my eyes, blurry is the normal state of affairs anyway.
Interestingly I don't get the same impression about MS rendering when in VS2010. I feel like I prefer its rendering over VS2008
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know for sure, but I think the text editor in VS2010 might be using WPF, which has a much newer text rendering subsystem than GDI+. As to the specifics, someone else may need to chime in.
Yep it does use WPF but I would have thought that ultimately it all went through the same MS technologies to get to the screen that IE uses. Obviously I am making an assumption there
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's all a bit complicated. Let me try to explain.
First of all, VS2010 does indeed use WPF 4, though not for all UI elements (it was not a grounds-up rewrite). But text editor is fully WPF, and so are menus and toolbars. Tool windows may or may not be on a case-by-case basis.
WPF 4, unlike previous versions, does use DirectWrite when available. This is indeed the same technology that IE uses, and it provides for "perfect rendering", where font glyphs are not snapped to vertical pixel boundaries, and therefor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're used to Microsoft's rendering, Apple's text will look slightly blurry. If you're used to Apple's rendering, Microsoft's will look weirdly spaced.
As a Linux user, Apple fonts look blurry; Microsoft fonts (AA'd or not) look like jagged crags of ugly (very difficult to read, at times - see the powershell font).
Re:Not suprising (Score:5, Informative)
Safari uses Apple's one wherever it runs. This means that you get Apple's sub-pixel AA instead of Microsoft's ClearType on Windows.
This used to be the case, but for a while now Safari for Windows gives you the choice between OS stock rendering, and Apple's fonts.
Microsoft tweaks glyph positions by a fraction of a pixel to make them line up more closely with pixel boundaries. This makes individual characters clearer, but means that the spacing between characters looks a bit messed up. Apple renders glyphs exactly where they should be, which means that they often overlap pixel boundaries and need a lot of antialiasing.
To be more specific, ClearType tweaks glyphs such that vertical lines are snapped to pixel boundaries - so a 1px vertical line is rendered using a single-pixel-wide column of physical pixels. On OS X, the same 1px vertical line can end up on fractional coordinates (e.g. at X=8.5px), and will be rendered using double-pixel-wide column of physical pixels to approximate that. The result is more blurry.
This is particularly noticeable on small fonts with thin elements, such as Windows system fonts Tahoma 8pt (in 2K/XP) and Segoe 9pt (in Vista/7). It's also why OS X default font is larger, and the stems are thicker.
The disadvantage with ClearType approach is not just "weird spacing", though. It distorts the overall size of the text by its adjustments. Normally, if you increase the point size twice, the physical size in pixels should also increase by exact same amount (+/-1px due to need to round to physical pixel boundary). OS X rendering actually guarantees that. On Windows, text rendered using small fonts is noticeably (by 20% or so) larger than it would be if "perfect rendering" was used, and so proportion is not maintained.
Which one is better is highly subjective, and more often than not the preference is defined by what the person was using before. Personally, I can't stand OS X rendering and love ClearType. I've met people who felt just as strong in the other direction.
Re: (Score:2)
However I much prefer the text rendering of Safari
This is so true but for me safari suck, it does not match my mental model of a browser, to me a perfect browser would have the text rendering of Safari, the speed of Chrome and the l&f and extensibility of Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's utter crap. IE8 (I have not tested IE9) makes me wait until the "tab home" is loaded before I'm allowed to open my bookmarks and click on a site to go there. If I open the bookmarks before that tab is loaded, it loads the bookmark in the now non-active tab.
The other PITA I've noticed with IE is that you can't middle click on bookmarks to open them in new tabs. You have to open a new tab... then click your bookmark.
The other thing I dislike about IE is it's restricted layout options (in Firef
Well I'm going to say congrats... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now figure out a way to get people to stop using IE6. (maybe an add-on to IE9 that makes it so you can run your ancient IE6 only apps?)
Re: (Score:2)
It remains to be seen if IE9 supports rounded CSS corners, shadows, etc... And what about the file API and XmlHttpRequest uploads?
I can't test as all I have is Windows XP inside VMWare.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It does support quite a bit of the css3 draft including rounded corner, box shadows, etc..
I find it funny that IE (from 7+) seems to have the best implementation of @font-face
Re: (Score:2)
How does IE7+ have the best implementation of @font-face? The other browsers support it too. The whole thing about the file formats and the licensing just gives me a headache, though...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um no, it really doesn't "remain to be seen" at all. The very first preview of IE9 (10 months ago, now) had CSS rounded corners, for example.
You could always try out the tests on http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Default.html [microsoft.com] in your browser of choice. They all work on IE9, and usually better (faster, smoother, or without layout issues) than on other browsers. All browsers, even IE8, can do some of the stuff there, but all other browsers have issues with some parts.
That's not to say IE9 doesn't still have i
NSF Award page (Score:2)
cause the story does not link directly to it...lazy!
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1012208 [nsf.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I feel conflicted (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, they're the same people who's responsible for summoning the Devil's own child into this world (under the trademark of IE6).
I honestly don't know what to feel about them right now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its easy to look back at IE6 and say "holy crap what a wreck!" but IE6 happened because the standards weren't moving fast enough. There is a reason IE6 took so much ground, because it actually did what people wanted. Then years later people come in with how it should have been done and now IE6 is the devil. I mean, yeah, its a pain in the ass and unfortunate, but its not like we didn't get anything out of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of a "standard" is this? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps my understanding of "standard" is a bit skewed, but isn't there something wrong when the best that a browser in its 9th version backed by the most powerful software company in the world can do is just be the "most compatible" one out there?
All FTP clients I use are 100% compatible with the FTP standard. I believe Adobe Flash player is 100% compatible with Flash. I think most mail clients are 100% IMAP and POP3 compatible.
Shouldn't standards be straightforward enough so that all parties wishing to comply to them simply can? Shouldn't compatibility with a standard be a floor instead of a ceiling to asymptotically crept towards?
I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, since the alternative is to wait another half-decade for W3C's glacial pace to finally (maybe) get to a finished standard, I think most people prefer to start in on it now, rather than continue being stuck on the now decade-old HTML4.01/XHTML 1.1 combo.
Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (Score:5, Informative)
Thats why it used to be referred to as a recommendation, instead of standard (lots of discussions around it, though i think the likes of ISO and whatsnot now consider W3C stuff as actual standards).
That said, if you ever tried to implement anything from the W3C, its full of holes, inconsistencies, ambiguous parts, things "left to the implementator", and all around, Microsoft's OOXML may have been a lousy ISO standard, but it sure would fit right in anything the W3C ever published.
The only reason it kindda works, and that so many browsers seem to implement it, is because the likes of those working on Firefox, Safari, etc, kind of agree on stuff they don't like or the standard doesn't dictate. That also makes IE8 look worse than it actually is (not that its not awful, but in a few (very few) cases web developers will complain about things on which IE8 is actually right, and Firefox is wrong, but Safari, and Chrome are wrong the same way).
Its not just HTML/CSS/whatever. The XQuery specs for example, are just as bad.
Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?
If it makes you feel any better IE 9 is 100% Microsoft compatible ... the most Microsoft compatible browser under development.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll believe that once I see it with my own eyes.
In the past I've encountered several cases where IE had problems with correctly-written scripts in Microsoft's Javascript dialect. To me it was just a case of consistency. If they ignore other people's standards then why should they comply with their own ones?
Re: (Score:2)
All FTP clients I use are 100% compatible with the FTP standard.
Just recently I had issues with an embedded device that had a built-in FTP client. It worked perfectly when connected to the MS XP FTP server, and it worked perfectly when connected to a FileZilla FTP server running on Win 7. But it failed miserably with talking to the MS Win 7 FTP server. Tech support claimed the issue was that their system was not tested with Win7. I'm not deep enough into the FTP RFC's to know who was ultimately at fault, but I am still shaking my head as after all it is simply FTP!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What an awful example. FTP is a nearly completely static protocol with no defined presentation layer for user interaction. On the other hand HTML5 is not even a completed standard yet and is almost entirely focused around creating user interactivity with the data.
What you are missing is this ... FTP doesn't correlate to HTML5. FTP correlates to HTTP. HTML5 would correlate more with the concept of the GUI to utilize FTP. Of which there are MANY completely different examples, none of which work perfectly for
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure I'm missing something here -- what is it?
HTML is very complicated and ambiguous. "Standards Compliant" relies on judgement calls.
Re: (Score:2)
FTP, IMAP and POP3 are protocols. HTML is a standard. I promise you your browser is HTTP compliant (which is the equivalent of your FTP client being FTP compliant). Flash is a closed "standard" in that the company that makes the software also sets the standard.It is much easier for adobe to create software that matches their "standard" as whatever they come up with if the "standard". With that said, creating a rendering engine that can properly render CSS, PHP, HTML4, HTML5, JAVASCRIPT, and the multitudes o
Re: (Score:2)
For Microsoft, following any standard at all is very unusual and newsworthy. :P
You're right on these points, but HTML5 is a brand-new standard, so it is to be expected that most current software does not support it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Most.. as you said.
But also, heck, many of the "IMAP" servers don't actually conform to IMAP (including gmail).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically ... neither is IE9. This article seems to fail in pointing out that it just compared a browser still in the preview phase to other browsers that are released. The board will keep changing, the difference is that within a few months of IE9 coming out there will be new Firefox and Chrome releases. The further difference here being that a year or two after IE9 coming out those same browsers (and likely Webkit/Safari, Opera, etc) will all have multiple releases.
So IE9 has essentially caught up ... s
Re:What kind of a "standard" is this? (Score:5, Informative)
The "released" browsers are:
Google Chrome 7.0.517.41 beta
Firefox 4 Beta 6
Opera 11.00 alpha (build 1029)
Safari Version 5.0.2 (6533.18.5)
The only one which doesn't have "beta" or even "alpha" in its name is Safari. So probably that one is actually released.
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't it finished?
This is good news (Score:2)
I'm no Microsoft fan, but like everyone else who works on web applications, I can say that it will make my life much easier if IE9 does a good job of implementing the standards.
Unfortunately, the technology I'm really waiting to see from Microsoft is something that will cause all of the existing copies of IE6 to spontaneously combust.
My first suspicion (Score:4, Interesting)
Tried with latest chromium (Score:3, Interesting)
Just tried with latest chromium, it passwed all random tests I clicked on, that the tested chrome failed on.
Irrelevant (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently you weren't paying attention when IE6 became IE7, nor when IE7 became IE8, and you're certainly not paying attention now when IE8 is about to become IE9.
Microsoft is obviously continually improving their product. If they weren't, this article would not exist.
They are not, however, doing it on the schedule you would like them to do it on, and for some reason in your mind that qualifies as stagnation. Most reasonable people can recognize that this is, in fact, a major improvement in a long line o
Hmmm. MSDN? (Score:2)
I wonder if the folks over at the W3C were recently gifted with free MSDN subscriptions...
Of course, why would they test the stuff we actually use?
Some of tests seem dumb, and site seems broken. (Score:3, Interesting)
I stopped clicking through the tests one-by-one when I came across one that would have been fixed by a simple “if (x1 == x2 && y1 == y2) return;”. I went ahead and scrolled down the list, though... for some reason a lot of the tests near the bottom read “No Result” for many/most browsers, and clicking a test at random (canvas(2d.transformation.scale..zero.html) [w3.org]) that said “No Result” in every column except Safari gave me a 404 error.
I’m not terribly impressed.
Congratulations, with a caveat (Score:2)
I'd feel a lot better about this if Microsoft weren't the one writing so many of the tests. As things stand, it smells an awful lot like the fox guarding the hen house.
HTML5 is a draft standard (Score:2)
Embrace comes before Extend (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all part of their standard operating procedures after all. If they wish to get back on top, they will need to support the standards... then, of course, they will extend on them, get developers to use the extensions and then make sure everyone else looks "broken" again. Seen it all before.
No wonder (Score:2)
The test is vastly incomplete... (Score:5, Interesting)
...according to the test developers [w3.org].
According to wired [wired.com]:
Run IE9 against other aspects of HTML5 and the browser would be decidedly behind its competitors. IE9 lacks support for Web Workers, drag-and-drop features, SVG animations and the File API, all of which are vital components for building useful web applications, and all of which enjoy considerable support in other browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's ignore that big fat '0' (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)