Author Topic: Current IE8 build renders the ACID2 Test correctly! (Read 53700 times)

Josh · « **on:** December 19, 2007, 05:17 PM »

The most current build of IE8 running in standards mode now correctly renders the Acid2 browser test.

Acid2 is a test that determines how well a browser works with several different web standards. Successfully rendering Acid2 is an important landmark for IE8, as it highlights the interoperability, standards compliance and backwards compatibility that we're committed to for this release. We are also announcing that IE8 Beta 1 will be released in the first half of 2008. This is the first significant disclosure of IE8 features and standards support and we expect broad interest. A Channel 9 video interview will provide further detail on this announcement.

As per usual, we will continue to collect designer and developer feedback to determine additional milestone timelines further down the line.
New information for developers: One of the goals of IE8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementation and without breaking the existing web. Last week, IE8 reached a core milestone: IE8 in standard mode now correctly renders the “Acid2 Browser Test”. Acid2 is a test that determines how well a browser works with several different web standards.

Source

Nighted · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2007, 05:51 PM »

Sure...but will it support animated PNG^w (.apng)? FireFox 3 & Opera 9.5 already do. XnView seems to support it also.

Example

edit by jgpaiva: fixed wiki link

MrCrispy · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2007, 06:01 PM »

This is great news, but in the end, its not about standards compliance but having all the browser vendors (FF, IE basically) agree on which standards they will agree to.

We're at least 5 years away from proper support for CSS3/HTML5, if we ever get there. Till then, web developers will continue to write customized pages based on browser quirks. And frankly, a lot of them probably want this state to continue as its where the money is at.

And there's a whole host of emerging technologies such as Adobe AIR, the new Flash language, Microsoft Silverlight, and whatever else happens to come along. AJAX and Web 2.0 seem so old now

Ehtyar · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2007, 06:08 AM »

I'm sure this will last a day...and a half...perhaps.

Ehtyar.

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2007, 07:47 AM »

This is not aimed at anybody, and thanks Josh for posting the IE8 update. It's good to hear anything on this (apparently) super-secret black project from Microsoft. But am I reading it correctly? Basically they're pleased because... it works?

"Dude, IT RENDERS HTML!!! Alert the media!"

Yes, I know it's an important benchmark in the IE8 development process, but how long has it been? 5 years? And just now they've gotten it to meet expected rendering standards?

Pardon my apathy, but really... do I need another browser? It's like everyone's trying to reinvent the spoon here.

Josh · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2007, 09:20 AM »

Am I wrong in that firefox still does not pass acid2? So is microsoft finally doing something that even mozilla cant do? I mean, to me the fact that microsoft can do this is a pretty amazing step given their past history with standards compliance.

f0dder · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2007, 09:46 AM »

About fscking time.

I think I'll stick with FireFox though, IE7 is so much slower than IE6 that it no longer has that advantage over FF.

justice · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2007, 10:17 AM »

Browsers based on the current version of the Gecko layout engine, such as Firefox, Camino, and SeaMonkey, do not pass. However, Acid2 support is planned for Gecko 1.9, and so these browsers are expected to pass Acid2 once Gecko version 1.9 is finished. This includes Mozilla Firefox 3.0, which is currently in a beta release.

So seen 1bit it is a no, although the current version of IE7 does a worse job than the current version of Firefox.

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2007, 10:20 AM »

Give me one compelling reason to upgrade beyond IE6. One.

(Note that FF is my primary browser; the only time I see IE is during Windows update or Hotmail sessions.)

jgpaiva · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2007, 10:31 AM »

So is microsoft finally doing something that even mozilla cant do?
-Josh (December 20, 2007, 09:20 AM)

Well... Not exactly. Firefox's beta) version 3 has passed the test for quite some time, from what i understand.

Lashiec · « **Reply #10 on:** December 20, 2007, 10:51 AM »

Give me one compelling reason to upgrade beyond IE6. One.

(Note that FF is my primary browser; the only time I see IE is during Windows update or Hotmail sessions.)
-Ralf Maximus (December 20, 2007, 10:20 AM)

Security, apart from a gazillion things more. IE7 comes with Windows, so even if you don't use it, I don't see why it should not be updated, just like any other Microsoft app. Besides, Internet Explorer still gets launched by certain software or from certain parts of Windows (HTML Help), and you'll want to have the updated rendering engine around for software that uses it to show information from the Internet.

IE7 is not Firefox, but I think it's a great improvement over IE6, and I wouldn't go back, even if I don't use it. Besides, Microsoft trying to keep up with the times is good for that 80% of people or so that use IE daily.

I think I'll stick with FireFox though, IE7 is so much slower than IE6 that it no longer has that advantage over FF.
-f0dder (December 20, 2007, 09:46 AM)

Did IE had any advantage over Firefox ever? (Well, maybe before 0.7 or 0.8 versions)

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2007, 11:52 AM »

Security, apart from a gazillion things more. IE7 comes with Windows, so even if you don't use it, I don't see why it should not be updated, just like any other Microsoft app.

Good points, but as I said, the only time I use IE is when running Windows Upate or checking my Hotmail account (rarely). Is security a big deal under those circumstances? 99.9% of my web access is through FireFox, which I *do* keep patched religiously.

Besides, Internet Explorer still gets launched by certain software or from certain parts of Windows (HTML Help), and you'll want to have the updated rendering engine around for software that uses it to show information from the Internet.

Assuming the software respects my "default browser" setting, I usually get FireFox. Even from Microsoft Apps.

Windows Help and MSDN Library *does* use the IE rendering engine, but due to its very nature they must remain backwards compatible. If a help file won't render in somebody's straight-off-the-CD IE6 that's unacceptable, and MS knows this. So it's not like a Windows .CHM file is going to approach the complexity of the Acid2 test or anything.

And I don't consider Windows Help particularly threatening malware wise. Should I?

nontroppo · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2007, 12:43 PM »

A compelling reason to upgrade to IE7?

How about real PNG support, better CSS, and javascript improvements!? Those who don't upgrade to IE7 are ensuring the even more sluggish adoption of critical standards. Web developers still see large IE6 stats and keep the horrid hacks in place, the awful table-based mess of semantic offensiveness. Everyone should upgrade to IE7, and ideally also run an alternative browser as their main portal to the internets.

IE8 does Acid2 - congrats to the IE team, but let us note that Acid2 is only a subset of relevant CSS rules. Their DOM support is so atrocious it is not worth even discussing...

Lashiec · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2007, 01:02 PM »

Good points, but as I said, the only time I use IE is when running Windows Update or checking my Hotmail account (rarely). Is security a big deal under those circumstances? 99.9% of my web access is through FireFox, which I *do* keep patched religiously.
-Ralf Maximus (December 20, 2007, 11:52 AM)

In the case of Hotmail, as long as you take the usual safety measures in front of unwanted mail (and you probably do), I'd say it's not a big deal, or not a deal at all

Assuming the software respects my "default browser" setting, I usually get FireFox. Even from Microsoft Apps.

Then Opera or my apps do not respect the setting all the time

. At least, when I launch a link from a HTML Help file, I get IE7.

And I don't consider Windows Help particularly threatening malware wise. Should I?

Not exactly, but security holes had been plugged in HTML Help in the past (there was a time Microsoft was constantly releasing patches for it, but then again it was in pre-SP2 times). I do not know if malware writers exploited those holes, but Windows Help had holes.

And talking about help files, checking the µTorrent help file a while ago, I came across what I feel is a HUGE improvement over IE6: page wide search. It may be a bit silly, but not having to select "Search down" or "Search up" is a godsend, particularly when I'm used to do that in almost every app (except in my Notepad replacement, which uses the basic text search built into Windows)

vradmilovic · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2007, 01:09 PM »

Then Opera or my apps do not respect the setting all the time . At least, when I launch a link from a HTML Help file, I get IE7.
-Lashiec (December 20, 2007, 01:02 PM)

It's not Opera's fault. HTML help (CHM) viewer is based on IE, which is the reason for this misbehavior. It drives me crazy, too.

f0dder · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2007, 05:35 PM »

I think I'll stick with FireFox though, IE7 is so much slower than IE6 that it no longer has that advantage over FF.
-f0dder (December 20, 2007, 09:46 AM)

Did IE had any advantage over Firefox ever? (Well, maybe before 0.7 or 0.8 versions)
-Lashiec (December 20, 2007, 10:51 AM)

Yes, speed. IE6 is much snappier than FireFox. It quite lost that advantage with IE7, while still being quite some way from the advantages of FF.

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2007, 10:28 PM »

Yes, speed. IE6 is much snappier than FireFox.
-f0dder (December 20, 2007, 05:35 PM)

Really? I've had the opposite impression. One thing FF does that IE6 does not is render the page as it downloads, showing objects as they arrive. You can work with a page before its finished rendering, even clicking away if a link appeals.

IE6 on the other hand seems to wait until the last moment, then renders the page all at once. It's instantaneous, but in many cases after a longer wait. Especially if the page as numerous links to PayPal, Amazon, or Google metrics.

f0dder · « **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2007, 02:57 AM »

Ralf Maximus: (executable from disk) load/init speed, not render speed...

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2007, 09:34 AM »

Ralf Maximus: (executable from disk) load/init speed, not render speed...
-f0dder (December 21, 2007, 02:57 AM)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

Tekzel · « **Reply #19 on:** December 21, 2007, 09:55 AM »

Ralf Maximus: (executable from disk) load/init speed, not render speed...
-f0dder (December 21, 2007, 02:57 AM)

Ah, well thats a small distinction, since you load a lot of IE while loading windows and it sits in memory when not in use. I think I would rather that not be the case and pay a few extra seconds loading the browser when I use it, so to me the Firefox implementation is the advantage, not the IE6 one.

f0dder · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2007, 08:02 PM »

Ralf Maximus: (executable from disk) load/init speed, not render speed...
-f0dder (December 21, 2007, 02:57 AM)

Ah, well thats a small distinction, since you load a lot of IE while loading windows and it sits in memory when not in use. I think I would rather that not be the case and pay a few extra seconds loading the browser when I use it, so to me the Firefox implementation is the advantage, not the IE6 one.
-Tekzel (December 21, 2007, 09:55 AM)

That's bollocks, really.

Yes, the "common controls" that were originally introduced with IE get loaded at OS start, because just about every application nowadays use them. But which other IE components get loaded at startup? Internet Explorer != explorer.exe.

I've heard that argument over and over again, but nobody have been able to quantify it.

And more than a second to load a browser is *forever* when I click a forum reply notify link in my email client. Yes, I could mitigate this by using the firefox tray icon hack but I don't feel like doing so. Also, even if FF is loaded, once there's ~10 open tabs, opening additional tabs become slower.

But hey, it's still worth it.

zridling · « **Reply #21 on:** December 23, 2007, 03:49 PM »

The best idea in IE7 was hiding the Menu bar automatically, using the ALT key to display it. I rarely go to the menus, and this saves valuable screen space. I wish Opera would do this.

Josh · « **Reply #22 on:** December 23, 2007, 04:13 PM »

The best idea in IE7 was hiding the Menu bar automatically, using the ALT key to display it. I rarely go to the menus, and this saves valuable screen space. I wish Opera would do this.
-zridling (December 23, 2007, 03:49 PM)

This quote is getting saved from you zaine

nontroppo · « **Reply #23 on:** December 23, 2007, 04:26 PM »

I wish Opera would do this.

Zaine, you can get a button to toggle the menu bar from:

http://operawiki.info/custombuttons#menu

Or, if you want to make your own key binding (prefs > advanced > shortcuts), this is the internal command needed:

[Select]

Enable menu bar,,,,Menu | Disable menu bar,,,,Menu

f0dder · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2007, 05:16 PM »

The best idea in IE7 was hiding the Menu bar automatically, using the ALT key to display it. I rarely go to the menus, and this saves valuable screen space. I wish Opera would do this.
-zridling (December 23, 2007, 03:49 PM)

I kinda hate that feature, even though I don't use menus much. I think I could learn to live with it (perhaps even appreciate it) for my web browser, but overall? Dunno.

I absolutely loathe "hide underline until ALT is pressed", and how the heck do I turn that off on Vista? >_<