Browser Tests Show Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards (hothardware.com) 165
MojoKid writes: The Internet and web browsers are an ever changing congruous mass of standards and design. Browser development is a delicate balance between features, security, compatibility and performance. However, although each browser has its own catchy name, some of them share a common web engine. Regardless, if you are in a business environment that's rolling out Windows 10, and the only browsers you have access to are Microsoft Edge or IE — go with Edge. It's the better browser of the two by far (security not withstanding). If you do have a choice, then there might better options to consider, depending on your use case. The performance differences between browsers currently are less significant than one might think. If you exclude IE, most browsers perform within 10-20% of each other, depending on the test. For web standards compliance like HTML5, Blink browsers (Chrome, Opera and Vivaldi) still have the upper-hand, even beating the rather vocal and former web-standards champion, Mozilla. Edge seems to trail all others in this area even though it's often the fastest in various tests.
Try Edge on the Insider Preview Build (Score:1, Insightful)
I use it daily, It doesn't have Adblock right now but blocking hosts works perfectly. Pretty amazing what Microsoft accomplished rebuilding their browser
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
'Their' browser as in the browser they initially bought.
A long time ago sure, but like MS DOS and the Windows networking stack, it's not something Microsoft made.
Re: Try Edge on the Insider Preview Build (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Try Edge on the Insider Preview Build (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is "amazing" about a multi-billion dollar, multinational software developer coding up a web browser?
That they did it?
That it runs?
That significant parts of it are hard-coded into the OS, again?
That it's more standards compliant that the previous version, even though it's the first version?
That it works pretty good for a v1, given that normally Microsoft needs 3 major versions to get to that state?
That the quality software known as Flash is BUILT INTO it?
Re: (Score:2)
Fast but weak on standards eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
By that metric, I'll go you one better: Links [wikipedia.org]. Very, VERY fast, but very shit on standard (by design).
Re: (Score:2)
Real programmers use netcat.
Re: (Score:2)
Real programmers use netcat.
I usually just call the sysop and ask him what's on the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Real programmers send HTTP requests over postcards.
Re:Fast but weak on standards eh? (Score:4, Funny)
Real programmers use butterflies.../xkcd
Realer programmers make apple pies from scratch. /sagan
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
w3m is also very fast, and includes images if you use rxvt and w3m-img or a console. It's a half-step up from links.
If you're looking for a dumb browser for TOR, it's a good one to use. No silly JS or other stuffs to defeat anonymity (outside of its uniqueness).
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
links -g supports images just fine. :-)
Who cares how fast you get the wrong answer? (Score:4, Insightful)
The title is a coinage my wife would drop into discussions when engineers would try to deflect bug reports with claims of how fast the new code is.
Related, for speedups of crash-buggy code: "So you've shortened the mean time to failure?"
Re: (Score:2)
I heard something similar from Professor John McCarthy in the 1960s: "I don't care how fast it runs if it gets the wrong answer." The context was a speed programming contest.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your comment and raise you 0x5f3759df.
Sometimes speed is quality in itself :).
Re: (Score:2)
But if I don't have to get the right answer, I can code it instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
What about w3m, Lynx, etc.? :P
which standards does it violate? (Score:2)
Which standards does links violate? As far as I know, ignoring tags (including script tags) is perfectly compliant with all standards.
It leaves out some features, of course. There are some things it does not do, but that's fundamentally different than doing it WRONG, as IE and Edge do.
Not in the PPA (Score:5, Funny)
sudo apt-cache search edge
Too many listings - nothing interesting.
sudo apt-cache search edge-browser
Nothing...
Try as I might, it doesn't seem to work. I guess, by default, that makes it the fastest browser, no?
Re:Not in the PPA (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ran "sudo apt-get update"?
Re: (Score:1)
Is it not astonishing that you have to "sudo" to get some software?
I installed "port" for Mac Os X the other day. Even after I fixed all the "wrong directory wx access" it did not work without sudo.
It simply creates new directories and does not set the access rights correctly.
Hence I stick to "brew" which installs all software with my users rights and does not require su/sudo.
Why a project like port is that successful by simply alienating users rights and security is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Astonishing? No, not at all. In fact, that's a feature I'm quite fond of. I really like the idea of needing elevated permissions to install software. Substitute User Do (or sometimes called Super User Do) is a great tool that allows you to temporarily act as an administrator, with appropriate permissions to accomplish those tasks, and is quite a good thing - in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you're finding fault in? You mean you want executable files to be able to install without permission? You want to edit
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you are an idiot like the guys who wrote "port" for Mac OS X.
As a user who calls a "program" that downloads stuff from the internet, compiles it, installs it: you most certainly don't want to do that as root.
If you believe otherwise you are not only unaware how a unix system works, but a complete moron!
I'm not sure what you're finding fault in? You mean you want executable files to be able to install without permission? You want to edit system files (gksudo) without permission?
Permission of what? You
Re: (Score:2)
I think you herped when you meant to derp but that's okay. No, no it's a good thing to need elevated permissions to make changes. I know, it's too hard for you but it's really a nice feature. It takes three seconds to type in a complex password and press enter. And I absolutely want to do it as root. It's a chain of trust - I trust the packages that I get. Why? Because you've gotta trust something so I might as well trust that which has countless other people looking. Does it mean I'm 100% secure? Nope. Not
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, I don't think Unix (any variant) uses apt-get? There might be one but I haven't met it. It has, of course, been a while since I have played with it.
Well, there's Debian GNU/kFreeBSD [debian.org] but that isn't an official Debian architecture just yet (unfortunately).
Re: (Score:2)
Now THAT could be interesting. I keep going back and poking at GhostBSD. I think it's time to take it out of the VM and onto the metal. I just really like Opera as my browser. I mean, really, really, prefer it. I am going to have to spin that up in a VM and see what it is like. Thanks! This is the first I've heard of it. I haven't played in Debian land much lately - not at all, actually. I tend to flit between distros like a drunken prom queen between 'dances.' Maybe even faster.
Hmm... Do we count BSD as Un
Re: (Score:2)
True - I still use it as it's a lot like Chrome with the privacy invading stuff stripped out. There are some neat features and I'm prodding them to make more. One of the big things I'm trying to get them to do (trivial seeming) and they seem inclined to work on it is to be able to automatically sync the dictionary. Right now, I've a hack job doing it for me but it'd be nice to do automatically. The other one, more complex, is to sync extension settings. That would be awesome.
Remember "fit to width?" Yeah...
Re: (Score:2)
No, no it's a good thing to need elevated permissions to make changes. Only if you want to make changes on stuff that is "secured" by those permissions.
To install a thing into /usr/local/bin I don't need nor want any privileges.
So if a tool is asking me for privileges I get immediately suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Err... That *is* Linux which was, you know, my point. Well, not that I had much of a point but Linux !== Unix. Similar but not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! That makes a little (more?) sense. I don't use a Mac if I can avoid it. I have, it's a nice OS I suppose. I just don't have the inclination to learn it well enough to be comfortable with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it not astonishing that you have to "sudo" to get some software?
Well, yes and no.
True, it's an extra step, but as others have said it's a good thing in terms of security to require root (or at least elevated) permissions to install stuff.
Just look at the disastrous and malicious stuff that routinely managed to install itself on older versions of Windows...if they'd forced people to make a user account with tighter install privileges, half the stuff that plagued (err, plagues) Windows boxes would never have gotten a foothold. This is how botnets and key loggers and root
Re: (Score:2)
True, it's an extra step, but as others have said it's a good thing in terms of security to require root (or at least elevated) permissions to install stuff.
No, it is not.
You can install stuff as "user" in areas where only "user" has access to.
If root is required during installation, you don't know what the "install program" is doing as root.
So it is the dumbest thing ever to run an install program as root.
Just look at the disastrous and malicious stuff that routinely managed to install itself on older vers
Re: (Score:2)
If your machine has six users, do you want six copies of each program and its associated data taking up space on your drive?
Re: (Score:2)
If my machine has six users and each of them has group read/execute access to the directory /opt/share/bin, /usr/share/bin or /var/whatever: it does not matter who is installing it as all of them can use it.
Also you seem to have missed the last 30 years: storage is cheap now.
Re: (Score:2)
If my machine has six users and each of them has group read/execute access to the directory /opt/share/bin, /usr/share/bin or /var/whatever: it does not matter who is installing it as all of them can use it.
But only root has write access to /opt and /usr. This means you still need to elevate to install something that all of them can use.
Also you seem to have missed the last 30 years: storage is cheap now.
This is true of HDDs but not SSDs.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need write access to /opt or /usr to have write access to /opt/share or /usr/share or how ever you want to call the directories.
I suggest to read up (agaon?) how access rights in unix work.
This means you still need to elevate to install something that all of them can use. ... as 'brew' and IIRC also 'fink' does it the right way.
No, you don't! Otherwise I had not written the rant against 'port'
Multi-GB games on SSD (Score:2)
Who the fuck cares about drive space these days????
Users of big Steam games on a PC with a relatively small SSD, for one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but then we know what is going to happen: an item is copied from where it is to where I drag it (and for copying to Applications you don't need to enter a password ... )
I was talking about a shell script that gets downloaded and executed as root by tools like "port".
Re: (Score:2)
kgiii@kgiii-desktop-8:~$ sudo apt-get update
*** scads of info ***
kgiii@kgiii-desktop-8:~$
Nope, nothing there. Purging the cache doesn't help either. I guess I'm just going to have to miss out on this wonderful new browser. Oh, the humanity! Oh the huge manatee! HALP!!!
Re: (Score:2)
You definitely need to install it. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't meant to be installed.
Fedora, eh? I hope you get the good stuff like cowsay and fortune. I mean, yeah, those are the most important features besides sl... Choo choo! - Try sl -F - I think that's my favorite.
This is not news (Score:1)
Trident has been lagging behind on standards for more than a decade. Just because MS stripped a ton of cruft out of it and slapped a new "e" word on it doesn't make it more compliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what the summary may suggest, there's no evidence presented that edge lacks standards compliance or indeed that chrome leads in standards compliance. The test used (html5test) isn't a test of standards compliance nor of html5; it's simply a large grabbag of features some of which happen to be defined in html5 - and those features aren't even really tested for, they just use feature detection. Many of those features are experimental (i.e. it's probably better if a browser *doesn't* support those wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would only further demonstrate the misleading nature of html5test. An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis), deprecated (keygen) or outright rejected features (websql).
Re: (Score:2)
An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis)
Webaudio [github.io] is a W3C standard.
deprecated (keygen)
It is not deprecated in HTML5, it will be in HTML5.1, and deprecated does not mean removed.
outright rejected features (websql).
In fact it does not award points for it: it is listed, but its inclusion does not award any points. Firefox does not nahve it and it still gets 35/35 points in that test.
Re: (Score:2)
An test aiming to measure support for modern "html5" should not award bonus points for non-standard (speech apis)
Webaudio [github.io] is a W3C standard.
At issue are the speech (sythesis+recognition) API's, not the audio API's. However...
outright rejected features (websql).
In fact it does not award points for it: it is listed, but its inclusion does not award any points. Firefox does not have it and it still gets 35/35 points in that test.
You're right - I was mislead by the fact that the feature is listed as providing 5 points, but that seems to be in error. The same also goes for speech api's incidentally.
The test isn't as bad as it seemed at first glance (though it's unfortunate that it's unclear what counts for what). Nevertheless, it counts proposed and experimental features, and misdetects at least keygen (which doesn't bode well for others), fails t
Benchmarks... (Score:3)
The fact that IE11 and Edge run SunSpider—and just SunSpider—so fast is rather suspicious... Feels like they optimized the engine for those specific routines until they could claim 'Twice as fast as other browsers!'
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article, they are doing quite a few things wrong such as standards support and garbage collection.
So you may be running your test really fast if you skip garbage collection or a host of features but that's not feasible for real-world situations. SunSpider specifically runs the same test(s) multiple times to get some statistical confidence in the results and only tests bog-standard JS performance, it also doesn't test the latest versions of EcmaScript so you may be running eg. a hand-built ar
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sunspider certainly doesn't have the most reliable name:
http://news.softpedia.com/news... [softpedia.com]
Don't read too much into sunspider scores. Octane v2 isn't perfect either, but it's a lot better. Mozilla's kraken is probably even better, but it's much more focused on what CPU-intensive JS can do than on what normal JS actually does. I wouldn't call it a general purpose JS benchmark.
Re: (Score:3)
ok (Score:1)
What did you expect .. (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to the programming adage.. (Score:1)
"First make it work. Then make it work right. Then make it fast."
What use is a program that fails in the most efficient manner?
Captcha: swiftest
Good, but man the fonts (Score:2)
Edge isn't bad. The devtools are decent too, so it's not terrible to test your stuff against.
But the fonts. Omg the fonts. With only basic grayscale antialising, unless you have a 4k display and scale at 125% or higher, the fonts are worse than Linux's were in the late 90s.
Its unbearable.
Re:Good, but man the fonts (Score:5, Informative)
Edge is shit for anything other than its dev tools or its rendering engine, though (and the latter still needs work, as TFA notes). No support for many of the things that any modern browser is expected to have, like: ...
* No ad or tracking blocking (something IE has had, built in, since version 9)
* No way to block Flash (built into IE in two different ways, ActiveX filter and site whitelisting for ActiveX), much less to block JavaScript
* No extension support of any kind
* Barely any cookie filtering (all, none, or no-third-party are the only options)
* No "restore last session" (only possible if you set it to *always* restore the last session)
* No RSS support
* No useful context options (aside from Inspect Element) like "search this" or "translate this"
* No user control over features like TLS versions image placeholders, etc.
* No support for tab thumbnails (was in IE as "Quick Tabs" from v7 to v10, and on taskbar starting with Win7)
* No tab grouping or ability to set Ctrl+Tab to switch in last-used order
*
It's an overgrown phone browser. It's not even close to suitable for PC usage.
Now, with that said, you can get IE to run with Edge's engine (EdgeHtml), at least on Win10 Enterprise. That combo works pretty well. A few minor bugs, but you get the better rendering engine combined with the features of an actual PC web browser.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't project Spartan because it faced off against the Persians. It's a comment about the featureset.
Re: (Score:2)
No way to block Flash
The Edge on my Windows 10 box has Flash turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, yes, should have been more clear. You can disable Flash entirely, but there's no way to do per-site or per-applet blocking.
Re: (Score:2)
* No significant MathML support
Re: (Score:2)
In Internet options you can use a privacy list from ad block plus. Edge will have or has in development mode a webkit add on support in 10.1 which will come out next spring.
10 and edge were rushed Vista style so not to miss the back to school cycle. I am keeping 8.1 and office 2013 until it becomes stable next spring
Re: (Score:2)
Given that most people are moving to mobile platforms, desktop programs, if anything, should be getting more complex, not simpler, since they're supposedly, only going to be used by more hardcore users.
I know that's not really true, but it's sad that mobile-style apps (spare and touch-optmized UI, no functionality beyond the barest basics) are becoming the new normal on desktops.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to replicate the shitty mobile experience on desktops.. They've succeeded.
Re: Good, but man the fonts (Score:2)
Cross-platform (Score:5, Insightful)
The only browser I would ever use is cross platform. Like any other software I use, including programming languages. Anything else would be impractical and is too 90s.
Re:Cross-platform (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah... one of the reasons I like Chrome so much is that my bookmarks are updated automatically on my Windows Desktop PC, Mac Laptop, Android Tablet, and iPhone. I doubt that I'll be able to pull off that stunt with Edge for awhile.
Re: (Score:2)
I can run Windoze on a VM in Linsucks and Mucks, and Mucks can run some versions os Windoze ust fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they stored on Google servers in an encrypted form that Google can't read or are you being data mined by Google?
If you set your own passphrase, then your Chrome bookmarks (and history and settings and if you sync them too, passwords) indeed are stored on Google servers in an encrypted form that Google can't read. That's been an option in the Chrome sync settings since nearly forever. Sign into a new instance of Chrome or Chromium-based Google-services browsers (Chromium, Dragon, etc.) and the browser will tell you that it can't access your synced data until you enter your private passphrase. Try to use the Google pas
Re: (Score:2)
That a lot of trust that you're putting in Google.
If they want your data, they can capture your password when you enter it into the software that they provided to you (Chrome). Not visible to you =/= not possible. For all you know, telling you that you can't manage your passwords because it's protected by a private passphrase could just be a show. I don't think it is, but don't be naive and think that it isn't possible. They could decrypt your data and start mining it tomorrow and you'd never know it.
Re: (Score:2)
You basically can't trust anybody, but my point is simpler than that: trusting a single party to store your private data and handle the encryption of that private data with a binary that they provide to you is incredibly naive. If that party wants your data, it's incredibly easy for them to get it. Even without being paranoid, that's a piss-poor approach to securing your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verses auditing the source-code yourself and compiling it every time? Honestly, that's a bit much.
It is a bit much, which is why your best approach is to avoid situations where you need to put all of your trust in a single other party. Trusting the biggest dataminer on the planet to handle your data in such a way that they are not able to datamine it, with their word as the only reassurance, is a silly proposition. If you use an encryption solution from one party and a storage solution from another party, you've diluted the damage that a single malicious actor can do.
If he's paranoid of Internet firms having his data for 'privacy' reasons, he shouldn't be online. Anything less is a false sense of security; don't even bother trying to sell it otherwise.
There are degrees of "paranoid", fro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Security is a process, with a large continuum of relative success. The entire process depends on locating risks and minimizing their impact.
Your entire statement is a textbook example of letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough". The answer to perfect security is to not play at all, but that doesn't mean that choosing to play means that you have zero security. There is a large region between perfectly secure and completely insecure and pretending that the situation is black and white doesn't actually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit that it doesn't seem like you're arguing against anything that I'm actually saying at this point. Since I'm getting bored of this "debate", you can go ahead and beat these bizarre little strawmen apart while I go talk with someone a little more interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like I'm dismissing your point instead of discussing it because you're arguing against a stance that I'm not even taking.
My stance is that trusting Google or any single party to store your private data and secure it against even their own access is silly, especially if you have no way to verify this. The fact that they offer you an auto-updating binary means that you cannot verify this, even if you wanted to.
A more secure, but still insecure (see below), approach would be to encrypt your data with
Re: (Score:2)
Fast But Crappy? (Score:3)
"Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards"
Great, so Edge will show me a crappy, mangled page really really fast!
standards matter more than miliseconds (Score:5, Insightful)
if you want to render a webpage the fastest: cut corners (standards be damned!)
if you want to render a webpage properly: don't use a microsoft product
They're all fast enough (Score:5, Insightful)
You can stop making browsers faster, putting more megapixels in camera sensors and resolution on phones, tablets and laptops, thanks. It's done; no-one's going to either notice or appreciate the difference any longer (apart from marketing, perhaps). You need to work on battery life, waterproofing (as in, actually waterproof), security and making the mobile experience better than the embarrassing ginger stepchild it currently is.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many people also blindly believe a camera on a cellphone is always better when the megapixel number is larger. They're dooming us to a world of phones that take 30 megapixel photos, can almost display them without zooming out and whose battery will las
AdBlock Plus support (Score:2)
I'll think about trying Edge ONLY after it is supported by AdBlock Plus!
Re: (Score:2)
What html5 standards? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] - in short, the html5test site is deeply flawed. If anything, a high score suggests a browser that supports deprecated, rejected or experimental features without decent feature toggles. Not a good idea.
HTML5Test is not a test of standardscompliance. (Score:4, Informative)
HTML5test is not a test of standards compliance; the title is misleading. It's a wishlist of features, some of which are standardized, but many of which are not (or are not part of HTML5). For example, html5test doesn't (in general) test whether you've really implemented a feature correctly (or really - at all) it just uses feature detection to check whether you've claimed to implement a feature. Fortunately, browsers are never buggy and this distinction doesn't matter.
Then, html5test follows the whatwg's "living standard" instead of the less-cutting year-old actual standard html. This makes sense at first glance - we want to know which browsers support "new" features too! As a developer, that's great. As a score for a browser, that's questionable. Many features are added to the standard because one of the browsers initially experimented with a non-standard extension; lately that's been webkit/blink due to the mobile push, but previous names have included IE6. By *intent* the whatwg living spec is a few steps ahead of the browsers. What this means is that if you use this as a score is that you're going to penalize whoever is following the spec, and promote those leading the spec. That deserves at least a separate score.
Then, there are HTML5 features that are deprecated, like . The continued support for scores chrome two points, and edge+firefox none. Is that really what you wanted to know? I bet there are *lots* of deprecated features in old IE; if you're going to start counting those...
Then there's features like speech synthesis and recognition. Those aren't part of the spec, have never been part of the spec, yet they're worth 5 points together. Or worse, the Web SQL features, that have explicitly been rejected, also worth 5 points (only webkit-derived browsers support this).
Almost all of the point differences between browsers can be explained by features that are experimental, deprecated or rejected.
In short: don't use html5test. It's pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant to say deprecated like keygen, but slashdot stripped the "html" tag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple perspectives here. As you point out, keygen wasn't always deprecated, and it hasn't been removed from the standard yet. So, as you point out, it's OK for a browser to support that. And I totally agree with that.
But also look at the context - the suggestion here is that a low score means a browser that is lagging in standards support. And that's clearly misleading. There may be nothing wrong with supporting keygen; but clearly the aim is to *remove* it, and there should certainly not
HTML5Test is somewhat bogus (Score:2)
That's their measure of "standards compliance". Unfortunately it's rather bogus. It includes non-standard stuff like WebSQL, which is not a standard at all and was only ever implemented in Webkit (which Blink inherited). Also, it's just checking for the presence of features and doesn't do any testing how well those features work. So it incentivizes browser to provide a bare-minimum buggy implementation of every feature under the sun, which isn't actually good for the Web.
Single platform (Score:2)
>"Browser Tests Show Edge Fastest, But Weak On Standards"
And single platform. Doesn't run on Linux, MacOS, Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't cha know, the cow level is a lie!
You are all cows. Cows say meow. meow! meow! MEEOOWW cows meow. Meow say the cows. YOU EDGE COWS!!!
FTFY
It sounds like your cows are a bunch of pussies...
Just saying...
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5test is not a test of standards compliance; the title is misleading. It's a wishlist of features, some of which are standardized, but many of which are not (or are not part of HTML5).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The keygen feature has been deprecated. It's likely edge will support more open formats in the future: http://blogs.windows.com/msedg... [windows.com], including opus+vorbis.
Between firefox, chrome and edge, I'd suggest that today it is chrome that has the greatest support for non-standard features, tracing back to the hastily designed extensions to webkit for the early iphones. In particular many non standard things like speed synthesis and recognition are only on in blink/webkit, as is WebSQL (which, to be fair, was
Re: (Score:2)
The keygen feature has been deprecated.
It has not. It is in the current standard (HTML5). It will be probably deprecated in HTML5.1, but that again doesn't mean that it shouldn't be supported. It will be probably removed in HTML5.2, but HTML5.2 is at least two years away from being released..
Re: (Score:2)
You're quoting out of context. What you say is true, but doesn't affect the validity of my argument that html5test is poorly designed.
Note that if you're going to exclude the living spec in an attempt to rationalize html5test's behavior, be aware that many features it checks for aren't present in the static html5, only in the living spec.