Comments on: Acid3

By: flash tekkie

flash tekkie — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:27:22 +0000

WebKit passed Acid3 fully for the first time on Friday. So it's 100 subtests of 100 passed now. Opera 9.60 Beta scored 85.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:09:01 +0000

@Martijn: It's really not useless. It's a list of bugs that have long bothered developers. You had the ability to submit your own tests for consideration as well.

By: monk.e.boy

monk.e.boy — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:12:19 +0000

@Martijn WTF?! Write your own test, give it a funky name and then promote it.

I’d love to see two competing tests.

By: Martijn

Martijn — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:34:20 +0000

Sigh, yet another useless test that doesn’t reflect what is out there on the web.
But in the meantime it will suck up developer time that could better be used to fix real bugs.

By: Neil T.

Neil T. — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:25:19 +0000

I think right now Gecko 1.9 is the most-compliant rendering engine, but even then it only gets around 50-60%.

Acid2 also came out at a difficult time for Mozilla, just as Gecko 1.8 was being finalised. I doubt that WaSP are deliberately targeting Mozilla in this way but the timing is unfortunate.

By: Al Billings

Al Billings — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:34:36 +0000

Can I have a “complaint” browser?

By: Boris

Boris — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:37:13 +0000

> By the time Acid3 complaint browsers are the
> norm, web applications will have a very nice
> platform of features that they can depend on.

Incidentally, perhaps, since passing Acid3 will take time. But what does Acid3 have to do with the claim about web applications? What features that web applications want to depend on but can’t are tested by Acid3? The specified parts of the DOM (which is what Acid3 largely tests) are mostly interoperably implemented in all modern UAs. The pain points are in things which aren’t specified (yet).

By: Brian P

Brian P — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:36:55 +0000

I like the longer dev cycle. You can then get a bunch of bigger changes/progress instead of smaller changes or one or two sizable changes. Those big changes like the switch to cairo and the reflow overhaul really did need this time get all of the bugs out and get performance going for cairo.

Plus a cycle that short would probably result in having two releases from a single gecko branch like what happened with FF 1.5 & 2. Which that doesn’t really help speed up improving the level of standards support.

Perhaps after Moz2/FF4 the list of large changes will dwindle enough that faster cycles can follow.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:40:30 +0000

@Ian Hickson: Agreed on the shorter release cycle bit. Though I can see the advantage of longer release cycles (more time to let larger changes mature).

By: Ian Hickson

Ian Hickson — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:30:40 +0000

Yeah, I hope with Acid4 the timing will suck less for Mozilla. Of course, this is one reason to go for shorter release cycles. If an update to Firefox came out every 3-6 months, it would never be a bad time for the test to come out. (Acid3 took about 10 months development time from start to finish.)