Jump to content

Talk:Acid3: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gsnedders (talk | contribs)
71 edits
 
(251 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject Computing|class=C|importance=mid}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{WikiProject Internet|class=Start|importance=high}}
|maxarchivesize = 128K
== Archive ==
|counter = 5
Old discussions for this page has been archived.
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Acid3/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{talk header |search=yes }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Internet |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Document Object Model#Levels of DOM|DOM Level 2]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Levels of DOM) has been [[Special:Diff/464660953|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Levels of DOM","appear":{"revid":425001341,"parentid":424020297,"timestamp":"2011-04-20T10:48:29Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["Levels of DOM"]},"disappear":{"revid":464660953,"parentid":462679249,"timestamp":"2011-12-07T23:26:47Z","removed_section_titles":["Levels of DOM"],"added_section_titles":["Levels"]},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Levels"} -->
}}


== Defunct ==
* [[Talk:Acid3/Archive 1]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itpastorn|Itpastorn]] ([[User talk:Itpastorn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itpastorn|contribs]]) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* [[Talk:Acid3/Archive 2]] <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Mabdul|<font color="#000">mabdul</font>]] [[User talk:Mabdul|0=*]]</small> 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
* [[Talk:Acid3/Archive 3]] '''''[[User:ARC Gritt|<span style="color:#f60">- ARC Gritt</span>]][[User talk:ARC Gritt|<span style="color:#fc3"><sup>TALK</sup></span>]]''''' 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


All three Acid tests originally hosted at acidtests.org are no longer present. [[User:Hairy Dude|Hairy Dude]] ([[User talk:Hairy Dude|talk]]) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
== Chromium fails the acid3-test ==


:I don't understand what you mean. When I go to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ in my FF browser I get an Acid3 test showing me a result of 97/100. What exact test (or tests) are you missing? <i>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:JohnFromPinckney|JohnFromPinckney]] ([[User talk:JohnFromPinckney|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/JohnFromPinckney|edits]])</i> 20:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
As of July 3 2009, Chromium now passes Acid3 100%. Any build of version 3.0.192.0 (build 19910) and above now passes. You must load chrome with the ' --enable-remote-fonts flag in order to get a pixel-perfect rendering (remote fonts are disabled by default in Chrome due to security reasons according to http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=231#c85 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.188.54.154|99.188.54.154]] ([[User talk:99.188.54.154|talk]]) 04:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Updates and History Classifications ==
Chromium says 100/100 but the result I get is not the same as the reference:<br />
- Chromium shows incorrectly "LINKTEST FAILED".<br />
- The grey shadow of "Acid3" is missing.<br />
[[Special:Contributions/213.10.195.214|213.10.195.214]] ([[User talk:213.10.195.214|talk]]) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:Be sure you are using the same build of Chromium referenced in the article. [[User:Luinfana|Luinfana]] ([[User talk:Luinfana|talk]]) 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::My results for that build are the same as for the latest build. There really seems to be a problem with the linktest. Chromium also fails another test: http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html It probably has something to do with: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22131 [[Special:Contributions/213.10.195.214|213.10.195.214]] ([[User talk:213.10.195.214|talk]]) 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


All these discussions are nice and dandy when it comes to describe the acidtest3.org web page and its use, but insofar as the results displayed, the "contemporary" explanations at the end of the paragraphs always become antiquated after a few years pass by! For example, stating that "Both IE 11 and Edge pass with 100/100." in 2014 (or whenever) is nowadays (in 2022) ERRONEOUS! For whatever reason, my own Edge shows 97/100, as do most of my other browsers; of course, there may be other reasons why they don't pass with 100/100 but without MORE DETAILS, it's irrelevant to write it like so and only contributes to wikipedia's reputation about subjective and/or inaccurate contents! Someone with more experience and skills than me should remedy to that - and it'd help if the person is also as objective as possible! (I'm just saying...) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AzraelDrums|AzraelDrums]] ([[User talk:AzraelDrums#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AzraelDrums|contribs]]) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::As of build '''7750''' chrome STILL doesn't pass all parts of the acid 3 test (they fixed font but linktest failed is still there) so this should definitely be fixed. [[User:Zamadatix|Zamadatix]] ([[User talk:Zamadatix|talk]]) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


== Acid3 successor "WPT" ==
I get 99/100 with Chromium 2.0.180.0 when I go to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ from the start page showing most visited pages. But then I get 100/100 when I hit reload. [[User:Termopetteri|Termopetteri]] ([[User talk:Termopetteri|talk]]) 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:Instructions for taking the test are to visit the page and press reload. The first result (before reload) is expected to be often incorrect. [[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


There has been an effort by some W3C and Google folk, from what I gather, to support more recent browser features in the Acid3 test. The test seems to be under a "[https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt Web Platform Tests]" project (WPT), and is available at [http://w3c-test.org/acid/acid3/test.html http://w3c-test.org/acid/acid3/test.html] (HTTP seems to be a requirement for 100/100 instead of HTTPS; browser extensions may mess up results), or alternatively on wpt.live instead of w3c-test.org (as they are mirrors).
I just ran it with 4.0.249.4 on Ubuntu 9.10, and the rendering is pixel-perfect, but not entirely smooth. --[[Special:Contributions/86.69.114.171|86.69.114.171]] ([[User talk:86.69.114.171|talk]]) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Anyway, it might be worth a mention on the article. I'm not sure how it'd be included, though; this article talks about the history of the original Acid3 test, and slapping a mention of the updated version (seemingly by different authors) somewhere feels like it wouldn't belong. This is worsened by the fact that the WPT apparently include other tests beyond the Acid3 test. So, I don't know. The whole of the project might be worthy an article of its own. — [[User:Avelludo|Avelludo]] <small>([[User_talk:Avelludo|Talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Avelludo|Contribs]] / [[Special:Log/Avelludo|Log]])</small> 03:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
== Safari 4 does not pass Acid3 ==


:There's nothing really ''new'' in the Acid3 fork: it merely comments out subtests that are no longer correct per current specs. (Very much along the lines of Hixie's 2011 changes.) Why comment them out? Because it means we still run the rest of the test, and thus can notice if anywhere else in the test unexpectedly starts failing.
In the same way that Opera 10.0 fails the performance test, Safari 4 does too. Even worse, it takes over double the time on the same harware (Core2 Duo E6600). [http://i25.tinypic.com/33dcswl.png Linky]. So by the same token the iSheep are up in arms that Opera should be removed, so should Safari. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.174.171.21|81.174.171.21]] ([[User talk:81.174.171.21|talk]]) 11:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commits/master/acid/acid3 gives the full history, which makes this clear.
:We cannot say that Safari does not pass in the article based on original research. You need to find a reliable source to cite. Also, please remember to assume good faith. Thank you. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 12:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:The short background here is every browser vendor had essentially done this separately, and having it in a shared location avoids duplication of work or disagreements about which subtests still apply. [[User:Gsnedders|Gsnedders]] ([[User talk:Gsnedders|talk]]) 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::Whether or not a browser passes Acid 3 depends on whether somebody makes an official statement? Sounds a bit weird to me. BTW, I also never could find out how Safari 4 "passes" Acid3 better than Opera 10 does. But then, this discussion looks so ridiculous to me that I don't really want to get involved. --[[User:DeTru711|DeTru711]] ([[User talk:DeTru711|talk]]) 17:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Whether or not we can say it in Wikipedia depends on whether somebody makes an official statement, because Wikipedia requires a [[WP:CITE|citation]] from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] and does not allow [[WP:NOR|original research]]. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::So if somebody makes an official statement that Safari 4 passes Acid 3 qualifies it to put it on Wikipedia, even if that statement is "wrong" (since Safari 4 doesn't really seem to pass the performance aspect of Acid 3 in the same way that it's demanded for Opera)? To me it looks just like a battle between fans of either browser, with Safari fans wanting their browser to be the only passing one (BTW, I'm not a fan of either; only the reasoning behind the decision looks ridiculous to me because obvious facts that everybody can test for himself should count more than official statements by somebody). Bah, I didn't want to engage in this discussion, now I'm afraid I did :(. But be relaxed, I'm not going to change anything on the page regarding this question - I leave that up to you guys to battle that out. --[[User:DeTru711|DeTru711]] ([[User talk:DeTru711|talk]]) 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Sources are supposed to be third party, the citation stating that safari passes is currently from the apple website. They could easily have ignored the performance aspect, the never specifically state what the performance is. Maybe we should ignore the performance aspect in judging whether it passes due to the difficulty in testing. Acid3 is really meant to test standards compliance, not speed, anyway.-[[User:AlexTG|AlexTG]] ([[User talk:AlexTG|talk]]) 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::::This sounds very reasonable to me. All the test says is "the animation has to be smooth". If that applies to one of them, it certainly applies to the other as well (or conversely, to neither). --[[User:DeTru711|DeTru711]] ([[User talk:DeTru711|talk]]) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


== URL is Dead ==
:::::Perhaps the best way to handle this is to change the section header to something like "Browsers which score 100%", and then list all the browsers that do. Next to Safari, we can add an extra note that Safari is known to also pass the performance measure as well. I think this seems much more reasonable, especially given the discrepancy in the evidence. Does this seem like a change that would make everyone happy? (I, personally, would feel much better) <FONT COLOR="00AA00">'''Ean5533'''</FONT> <FONT COLOR="000099">([[User:Ean5533 | View!]] / [[User Talk:Ean5533 | Talk!]])</FONT> 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


The URL (https://acid3.acidtests.org) returns a site not found error. It looks like the Acid3 test has gone offline [[User:Wiichicken|Wiichicken]] ([[User talk:Wiichicken|talk]]) 01:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::It sounds fine to me, except that I would add passing the rendering aspect of the test to the criterion. We could then have a note explaining which browsers pass the performance aspect of the test, and even state how "close" a browser is if it doesn't pass, provided that a citation to a reliable source can be given. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::Why not say that the performance aspect is disputed (instead of any Yes or No), with a side note saying that this is not accurately defined which leaves open several ways of interpretation? As this discussion proves, that would describe the facts best. --[[User:DeTru711|DeTru711]] ([[User talk:DeTru711|talk]]) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Ian Hickson, the author of the Acid 3 test, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#cite_note-4 very clearly states] that the performance aspect of the test is based on using "''... whatever the top-of-the-line Apple laptop is at the time the test is run''" and not getting any error messages such as "test XX took XXms (less than 30 fps)." While I personally think that metric is complete garbage and totally biased/unfair, it is the test author's choice. If we want to place value in his test, we have to follow all of his rules.

:::::::And that's fine, but I'm pretty sure you can throw a x64 32 CPU mega-server with Opera 10 (being a top-of-the-line server), and it will also pass the Performance test. Referring back to my original link, Safari is consistently taking 1-2 seconds more to pass the Acid3 on typical hardware, and it's rather misleading to suggest that Safari passes the performance aspect and Opera does not. Setting them both to NO and citing my original benchmark screenshot. Awaiting the minutes before the iSheep put it back... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mgillespie|Mgillespie]] ([[User talk:Mgillespie|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mgillespie|contribs]]) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::::I reverted your edit because one needs to run the test on the reference platform (a top of the line Apple laptop), and because original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Also, please [[WP:GF|assume good faith]]. Thanks. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

:::::::However, I do think it's fair to mention it in the article. Maybe in the section where we list browsers that pass, we can make a note about the performance metric using a top-of-the-line apple laptop as the reference hardware. That will make it obvious to anyone that cares why Opera or other browsers are potentially handicapped. <FONT COLOR="00AA00">'''Ean5533'''</FONT> <FONT COLOR="000099">([[User:Ean5533 | View!]] / [[User Talk:Ean5533 | Talk!]])</FONT> 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

== Epiphany ==
151.59.216.108 is right. Epiphany 2.28 released on 1 November 2009, part of GNOME 2.28, pass the test with 100/100. This happen also because of the switch in rendering engine from Gecko to WebKitGTK+.
To find a reliable source I simply followed the link in Epiphany Wikipedia article:<br />
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/linux-garden-gets-a-new-gnome-with-version-228.ars<br />
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/04/webkit-gtk-port-passes-acid3.ars<br />
Then I just tried to compile and install Epiphany by myself. Try yourself. As today is the only WebKit solution for Linux that pass Acid3 test --[[User:Efa|Efa]] ([[User talk:Efa|talk]]) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:The only information I can find about how Epiphany does on the Acid3 test is that it currently scores 100/100. There is no information about rendering or performance, which are the other two aspects of the test. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
To be true, the links speak about the fix done to get perfect pixel rendering past in 2008. Anyway for the performance part test, you are right, I have no realiable source. I will write to ars technica asking for a clarification.

About that I'm in favor of rename the paragraph to "Browsers which score 100" (and so add Google Chrome and Midori), add a column "Pass" and write Yes when all the 3 criteria (Score 100/100, Pixel-perfect rendering and Performance) are all Yes from a reliable source. This clarify the confusion about the 100% of many users.--[[User:Efa|Efa]] ([[User talk:Efa|talk]]) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

:The rendering under Ubuntu 9.10 is not Pixel-perfect, although it's damn close. Looks mostly like differences in line spacings. --[[Special:Contributions/86.69.114.171|86.69.114.171]] ([[User talk:86.69.114.171|talk]]) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany gets 100/100, but fails the performance and is not pixel perfect. It should be mentioned in the article. Screenshots:
[http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Epiphany-acid3.png]
[http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Epiphany-acid3-popup.png]
[[User:Anikom15|Valcumine]] ([[User talk:Anikom15|talk]]) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:The link up here in my comment of 9 November 2009 say that the pixel perfect rendering was ok. I already added Epiphany some times ago, but was deleted by Schapel on 1 December. Please readd Epiphany.--[[User:Efa|Efa]] ([[User talk:Efa|talk]]) 15:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
::I just checked again, and your source says only that Epiphany's score is 100/100. The source does not mention the rendering or performance aspects. Please find reliable sources to cite for the information you're adding to the article, and then cite them in the article. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I finally figured out how you're trying to use the sources for Epiphany. One source says that the WebKit version of Epiphany passes Acid3. That post was from April 2008. Another post says that Epiphany 2.28 is the WebKit version. You're trying to combine the information in the two sources to conclude that Epiphany 2.28 passes Acid3. I can think of two problems with this approach. First, the Acid3 test may have changed since April 2008, so the old information is not necessarily valid. Second, synthesis of published material is [[WP:OR|original research]], which is not allowed in Wikipedia. In short, you are using two references to come to the conclusion that Epiphany 2.28 passes Acid3. What we need is a reliable source that states that Epiphany 2.28 passes Acid3. We cannot add our own conclusions to Wikipedia, only conclusions stated in reliable sources. All we have is a source stating that Epiphany 2.28 scores 100/100. To go in the Browsers that Pass section, we need confirmation that the rendering is correct. I haven't seen a rendering done by Epiphany 2.28 on the browsershots site, and testing it myself would be original research. I've done Google searches, and cannot find information on how well Epiphany 2.28 renders Acid3. If someone can find a source, please list it. Thanks. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 15:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
: the only stable current version of Epiphany is the 2.28 based on one engine only, that is WebKitGtk. The old engine was abandoned.--[[User:Efa|Efa]] ([[User talk:Efa|talk]]) 13:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, I understand completely. We need a reference that states that Epiphany 2.28 renders Acid3 correctly if we want to state that Epiphany 2.28 renders Acid3 correctly. We cannot deduce this conclusion and add it to the article. Do you have a reference? -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, i just tested Epiphany 2.29.3:
*Failed 0 tests.
*Test 26 passed, but took 60ms (less than 30fps)
*Test 69 passed, but took 18 attempts (less than perfect).
*Total elapsed time: 1.16s
Witek <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/149.156.67.102|149.156.67.102]] ([[User talk:149.156.67.102|talk]]) 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:First, this is [[WP:NOR|original research]], which we can't add to Wikipedia. Second, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We know Epiphany scores 100/100. You do not mention the rendering, and you do not mention the specs of the computer you were testing on, which we would need to determine whether Epiphany passes the performance aspect. Again, what we need is a reliable source that describes how Epiphany 2.28 or later does on the rendering and performance aspects. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 15:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

== Why the anti-Opera bias? ==

I thought there was supposed to be NPOV on Wikipedia. The Safari passed the performance tests and Opera does not is totally bogus, and seems to get constantly reverted back by some kind of Apple fanboi. Both companies claim 100/100 Acid3 compliance, neither elaborate as to if that includes the performance tests, yet it seems in the case of Apple you can infer it does, in the case of Opera it does not, DESPITE evidence suggesting that Safari performs significantly worse than Opera on the same hardware...

I know Opera has a low marketshare in the US, and Apple is an American company, and Americans like to support homegrown stuff, but showing extreme bias like this under compelling evidence that suggests it' bogus is just embarrassing (for the author that seems to want to keep reverting the edit). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.75.83.25|195.75.83.25]] ([[User talk:195.75.83.25|talk]]) 09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:If you can find a reliable source that states that Opera passes the performance aspect of Acid3 (a reliable source stating that Opera passes Acid3 would imply that Opera passes all aspects), feel free to update the article. No one has been able to find one yet, only sources that say that Opera scores 100/100 and has renders the test correctly. There is no bias -- we are just following Wikipedia's guidelines, such as [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:CITE|citing]] [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. As for yourself, please do the same and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Thanks. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:It's because the safari citation has an apple representative saying "safari passed acid 3" while the opera citation says "100% score on Acid3 test". Hence assuming the apple representative knew about the performance aspect and was providing the quote in good faith, safari must have passed the performance aspect. I think it's likely he just wasn't aware/didn't care about the performance aspect but meh -[[User:AlexTG|AlexTG]] ([[User talk:AlexTG|talk]]) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::as per [[WP:Third-party sources]] none of the citation are reliable. I'm not questioning apple's claim but changing both Safari and Opera to show they passed based on their claim and adding the citation needed template to both. [[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
:::The guideline you refer to does not say that first-party sources are not reliable sources, but that you cannot rely solely on first-party sources when you write an article. In other words, articles need citations from third-party sources. This article has plenty, so it meets the guideline. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
::::If you have a 3rd party source then put a note next to the "Yes" to show it, and if you have a source that says that Opera fails the performance aspect of Acid3, change it to "No" and again put the link. Both entries rely on press releases as sources, as per the guideline I posted above, such sources should be identified as claims, not facts. It makes no sense to me to take Apple's claim as fact but reject Opera's claim. As it stands both companies claim their browser passes the test, no 3rd party sources are available to show otherwise. Both should be set at Yes with {{tl|citation needed}}. [[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::No, the guideline you referred to above has nothing to do with the edits you're making. You can see the discussion above for all the details. The bottom line is that the source says Safari passes Acid3 (meaning it passes all three aspects), but the source for Opera only says it scores 100/100 (it passes only one aspect). Please '''discuss''' the issue before making further changes. Don't just make the change and post a message. Thank you. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 13:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::How are the guidelines not relevant? [[Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Non-independent_sources]] says: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified."..."Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." yet you insist on removing the {{tl|citation needed}} from the Safari entry saying that Apple's website is sufficient source. Furthermore while you accept apple's claim as fact you reject opera's claim. [[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::If you want to follow the guidelines, then say that Apple states that Safari passes the test. Don't say that there's a citation needed when a citation has already been provided. Once again, I do not reject Opera's claim. I fully acknowledge that Opera gets a score of 100/100 on the Acid3 test. What is in question, however, is whether Opera passes the performance aspect of the test. The latest source we have says that Opera does not. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, Apple states that Safari passes the test, and there is a citations for that. where does it say it has no timing issues? As noted on the Acid3 creator's blog [http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1207096078&count=1] '''"The idea is to make sure that browsers focus on performance as well as standards. Performance isn't a standards-compliance issue, but it is something that affects all Web authors and users. If a browser passes all 100/100 subtests and gets the rendering pixel-for-pixel correct (including the favicon!), then it has passed the standards-compliance parts of the Acid3 test. The rest is just a competition for who can be the fastest."''' So Safari passing the test does not equal not having timing issues and Apple saying that they pass the test and Opera saying they got 100% (ie got 100/100 and rendered pixel-for-pixel correct) is the same thing. In fact I think both entires are wrong and should be changed to [[N/A]] or the performance column should be removed all together. [[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::In saying that Safari passes the Acid3 test, that means there are no timing issues. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::<s>did you even read the quote I provided above?</s> [[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 20:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think this table is working out. The fact is that the performance test is very ambiguous and completly dependant on the computer it is run on. So really, unless we get a reliable source which compares the browsers on many different computers we can't be sure of anything. Right now we have two first party sources, neither of which specifically refer to the performance test and both of which would have been run on different computers. I would prefer we removed the table, listed the two browsers that passed and had a note stating that the performance aspect is ignored due to ambiguity of the test.-[[User:AlexTG|AlexTG]] ([[User talk:AlexTG|talk]]) 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
::Its quite clear how acid3 performance is tested. As mentioned in the article the "reference hardware" as set by the test creator is whatever the top-of-the-line Apple laptop is at the time the test is run.[http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1207096078&count=1]
::However, I agree that the table is not working, it confused me. if its for browsers that pass the Acid3 test (Note:For a browser to pass the acid3 test, it must have a 100/100 score, the final page must be identical to the reference rendering, and the animation has to be smooth (all tests less than 33ms)), then only Safari should be listed because as far as we know Safari is the only one to claim to pass all 3[http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/].
::I think the "Browsers that pass" section could be changed to "Compliant Browsers" with a note explaining the performance aspect. Both Safari and Opera have passed the standards-compliance parts of the test (100/100 and rendering). --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 12:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the reliable source that say "browser X pass the test", should pubblish also a shot of the dialog box that appear clicking on A, that show the perfect timing on the reference hardware. Without that shot, we cannot really believe that they mean pass all the three parts of the test and not only the 100% compliance.--[[Special:Contributions/95.74.56.172|95.74.56.172]] ([[User talk:95.74.56.172|talk]]) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:The Wiki article should show this shot for passing browser too.--[[User:Efa|Efa]] ([[User talk:Efa|talk]]) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

::Here's a thought: why not say before the table that the sources come from first-party documents? That way, everything fits Wikipedia's rules about first-party sources without any subjectiveness. --[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] ([[User talk:Unknownwarrior33|talk]]) 04:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

----
It seems like this conversation has stalled. Should we remove the POV-check tag? Or leave it in? I'm pretty sure there's not an anti-Opera bias, but I'm not 100% sure that everything in the article is NPOV. Thoughts? '''~a''' ([[User:Arichnad|user]] • [[User talk:Arichnad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arichnad|contribs]]) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
:I don't believe that there is, or ever was an anti-Opera bias here. There is an enormous bias in the test itself, and representing such a test in a non-biased way is therefore completely impossible. It's worth noting that the author of the test is a webkit developer, a Mac user and also that the "reference hardware" specified for the test is manufactured by the same company as the Safari browser; the performance aspect of the test can't really be represented in a way that is fair to all browsers for the simple reason that this requirement was not designed to be fair to all browsers.
:The fact that it has been perceived as being anti-Opera is simply because Opera is the only competing browser to have done particularly well in the test, the test is also anti-Mozilla, anti-KHTML, anti-Netfront, anti-Blackberry and probably even anti-IE. Wikipedia can only represent this test "as is", to skew the results in a way that is somehow fairer would not be representing reality, so the banner should really be removed. [[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

:: I agree with you, but as I've said previously, I think this needs to be noted in the article. I was planning to just add a note by the chart, but we can even put this information in the main argument. Any objections? --[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.161.208.24|132.161.208.24]] ([[User talk:132.161.208.24|talk]]) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Updating ==

What's the standard for updating results? I got a better result than listed for a browser, but I fear that if I post a new picture, it will be taken down as original research. So what have others been doing? --[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] ([[User talk:Unknownwarrior33|talk]]) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:I think others have been posting screenshots from their browsers. I have been checking to see that the screenshots agree with what others have said and match screenshots from browsertests. If I have no reason to believe that a screenshot does not accurately portray how a browser renders Acid3, I let it stand. I would avoid interpreting the results of the test, such as claiming that the rendering is correct or stating that the browser passes the performance aspect, as that crosses the line to original research by synthesizing data from multiple sources. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

== Screenshot At Time Of Release ==

Why are the now-compliant browsers not listed with their "Screenshot at time of release"? These should be included for posterity. '''''[[User:ARC Gritt|<span style="color:#f60">- ARC Gritt</span>]][[User talk:ARC Gritt|<span style="color:#fc3"><sup>TALK</sup></span>]]''''' 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This has annoyed me since that change was made, and I agree. Fix it.--[[Special:Contributions/82.182.69.67|82.182.69.67]] ([[User talk:82.182.69.67|talk]]) 22:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

== Internet Explorer 8 results? ==

I'd just like to chime in and say that it's silly that Original Research is not considered in this article. The Internet Explorer 8(on Windows 7) results I got completely disagree with this article's opinion. First off, I had to install a Microsoft plugin to even properly test the browser (which I think completely nullifies any results on this browser). After installing the plugin I got 16/100, then 20/100, then 6/100. The 6/100 was completely consistent, even after restarting my computer. I use IE8 as my main browser(I know...firefox bla bla) and I think that any MSIE8 figures should be removed or edited. [[User:Hubertforthcourse|Hubertforthcourse]] ([[User talk:Hubertforthcourse|talk]]) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
:The core content policies of Wikipedia are [[WP:OR|No original research]] ,[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]] and [[WP:V|Verifiability]] and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. No offense but how can we verify that you ran the test with the correct settings? (On a site note, when I run the test in IE8 I get 20/100 in XP, Vista and 7). Also you cant remove facts from an article because you don't agree with them --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

== Where is the bar? ==

I tried to remove Konqueror from this list, but my edit was undone, so I'd like to get a discussion started here. Konqueror has .03% of the market share. I know .03% is just a number, and there's no sense in picking a random number and using that as the bar. However, that is less than a huge number of other browsers not on this list (i.e. Netscape, and "unknown" beat out Konqueror, 70:1 and 20:1). Also, it's '''[[WP:V|unsourced]]''' which means the burden of evidence lies with users wanting to add/keep the material. I also think even mentioning it violates '''[[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]''': "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". '''~a''' ([[User:Arichnad|user]] • [[User talk:Arichnad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arichnad|contribs]]) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:Market share is not the factor to determine the importance of the browsers listed. Acid3 tests are about the DOM and JavaScript, so basically the test is about layout engines and JavaScript engines. The main layout engines for web browsers are: Trident used by IE (JScript), Gecko used by Firefox (Spidermonkey JavaScript engine), WebKit used by Safari and Chrome (Safari uses JavaScriptCore as its JavaScript engine while Chrome uses its own V8 JavaScript engine), Presto used by Opera (Futhark JavaScript engine) and KHTML used by Konqueror (KJS JavaScript engine). There is no point in listing Netscape or Flock or Avant or Epiphany etc... Any Gecko-based browser will score the same as the Firefox version it is based on, same with WebKit-based browsers, Internet Explorer shells will score the same as IE. Konqueror uses a layout engine that is not represented by by any of the other browsers listed. --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::Well I agree with most of what you said but you didn't reply to any of my arguments. This still fails [[WP:V|V]] and [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]], right? My market share argument (though I agree it shouldn't be arbitrary) was because UNDUE specifically states "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". '''~a''' ([[User:Arichnad|user]] • [[User talk:Arichnad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arichnad|contribs]]) 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Views aren't being expressed in this situation, facts are. We are comparing the different performances of different browsers/engines, rather than providing differing opinions of the browsers.-[[User:AlexTG|AlexTG]] ([[User talk:AlexTG|talk]]) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Alex, using your logic, do we need to list ''all'' of the browser/user agents? Even the ones that almost nobody uses? Do we need to list NetSurf? Do we need to list Tkhtml? AWeb? The Bat? Entorage? None of them use layout engines discussed above. Also no one seems to be discussing [[WP:V|verifiability]]. It was not sourced, I removed it (citing among other things verifiability) and somebody added it back in. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. '''~a''' ([[User:Arichnad|user]] • [[User talk:Arichnad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arichnad|contribs]]) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::Acid3 is a web browser test, I don't think it applies to e-mail clients like the The Bat or Entourage. If you think that a browser should be on the list but its not then please add it, Its my understanding that the 5 engines listed in my comment above (along with Tasman that is no longer used in a web browser) are generally accepted as the notable layout engines, and each of these engines is represented by its lead browser. Also if its an issue of verifiability of a claim then just add {{tl|citation needed}} to it, don't remove the entry, and why only delete Konqueror? its not like the reference links for the rest are better. --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
::::::"Its my understanding that the 5 engines listed ... are generally accepted as the notable layout engines" Ok. I guess I'm willing to concede that point since it's starting to look like I might be in the minority here. However, your second point that "its not like the reference links for the rest are better". That argument I still would like to disagree with. Any content that fails [[WP:V|V]] can be challenged/removed by any editor regardless of how the other content stands up to V. '''~a''' ([[User:Arichnad|user]] • [[User talk:Arichnad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arichnad|contribs]]) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You are of course right about Verifiability, I was just making an observation that not only Konqueror but almost all the browser results are unreferenced. Here's a quick overview of the issues they have.
:::::::* Chrome has no reference links
:::::::* Firefox and SeaMonkey are unreferenced for the "release at time of Acid3 release" and "current release", the "preview release" has a screenshot and score of 3.7a1pre Minefield but the reference link is for 3.6a1pre Minefield.
:::::::* Konqueror is also unreferenced for the "release at time of Acid3 release" and "current release", current and preview release info is outdated, and the reference link of the preview release is for a version older than the stable release, Screenshots are also for older releases.
:::::::* IE is unreferenced for the “release at time of Acid3 release” and “current release”
:::::::Mobile browsers seem to also have the same problems. --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

== Chrome (Not Chromium) ==

For the latest Dev build of Chrome (Google Chrome 4.0.266.0), everything is perfect. The picture shown in the page shows that. Why is it listed as failing?

--[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] ([[User talk:Unknownwarrior33|talk]]) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind; just re-read the page.
--[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] ([[User talk:Unknownwarrior33|talk]]) 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

== Fixing disagreements ==

I understand completely why there is so much disagreement on this page. I'm not sure if this suggestion fits with Wikipedia's policies, but might it be useful to note the uncertain nature of these results on the page, near the chart? It would, if nothing else, make things clearer. The performance aspect, and the first-party statement from Apple, mean the listed results are not 100% perfect and exact, so people reading the page should be aware of that. --[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] ([[User talk:Unknownwarrior33|talk]]) 23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

::Does anybody object to this? No one has replied. If not, I'll go ahead and add something. Let me know. --[[Special:Contributions/132.161.1.180|132.161.1.180]] ([[User talk:132.161.1.180|talk]]) 07:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

== Opera Mobile 10 "beta" status ==

Firstly, Opera Mobile 10 is not listed in any of the tables in this article. I don't know what it scores, but it has the newest Presto 2.4 engine (the latest desktop browser contains Presto 2.2) which makes it quite notable I think.

However, this presents another issue. The latest "stable" version of Opera Mobile listed is 8.65. However, Mobile 9.7x has never been released as "final", and 10 is now out. Also, despite the current release being advertised as <em>"Opera Mobile 10 beta 2"</em> on the Opera Software website, it is the ONLY version officially available for download via opera.com. This makes me wonder if Opera are now using some "perpetual beta" type of versioning system for the Mobile product, though they have made no statement to this effect.

Which version should be included as the "current release" and "latest preview release" respectively in the table? Opera Mobile 10 beta 2 is definitely the "current release" if we're to go by what is the main official release provided for download.
[[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:As far as I know Opera Mobile 10 is still only available in beta, however while 8.65 was the latest stable release that was available to download newer versions have been available pre-installed on many phones. It seems its Opera's strategy to release public betas but then only sell the finished product to manufacturers (sales of Opera Mobile is one of their major sources of income). HD2 ships with Opera Mobile 9.7 therefore I think Opera Mobile 9.7 is RTM and so a released product, with a score of 100/100, correct rendering and performance not an issue Opera Mobile could be moved to the "Browsers that pass" section --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 09:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
::OK, I'll move Opera Mobile to the passing section as you suggested in that case, if noone objects. I'm not really sure about doing it myself, but I think you're probably right about their release strategy so... [[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

== Firefox ==

Firefox only passed with a score of 93 NOT 96. I can take a screenshot if you want me to. --<font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:Tyw7|''Tyw7'']]</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;([[User talk:Tyw7|Talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tyw7|Contributions]]) 10:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
:I'm getting 94/100 with 3.7a1. It fails tests 71, 72, 77, 78, 79 and 80. [[User:Gyorokpeter|Gyorokpeter]] ([[User talk:Gyorokpeter|talk]]) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

::If you have the Adblock Plus extension installed, Firefox only gets a 94 rather than 96 (97 with html5 parsing enabled) unless you properly configure Adblock Plus by whitelisting the acidtests.org domain name. The specific sections this causes to fail are tests 71, 72 and 80, which are exactly the same extra tests you are experiencing failures on.
::Adding an Adblock Plus filter of the form:
@@acidtests.org
::corrects the issue. [[User:Wgianopoulos|Wgianopoulos]] ([[User talk:Wgianopoulos|talk]]) 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::It shouldn't matter if Adblock Plus or any other add-on messes with the score; the test is supposed to be run without add-ons of any kind enabled as per the [[Acid3#Passing conditions|Passing Conditions]]. [[User:Thorenn|Thorenn]] ([[User talk:Thorenn|talk]]) 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

== iPhone Safari Browser? Where is it? ==

Why is the iPhone safari rendering unavailable? Last time I was at this page, it was here. However, it seems to have been removed. Did something happen that I was not aware of? Is this vandalism that went by unnoticed?

Please enlighten me. I see no reason as to why the iPhone Safari rendering should be removed.
[[Special:Contributions/67.166.99.19|67.166.99.19]] ([[User talk:67.166.99.19|talk]]) 21:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, mybad. I didn't see that the rendering was located in the "Passing" section.
02:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.166.99.19|67.166.99.19]] ([[User talk:67.166.99.19|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I don't know if the move was "vandalism" or just a misunderstanding of the test but Mobile Safari shouldn't be in the browsers that pass, it gets 100/100 but the rendering is wrong with an X on the top right corner similar to Chrome 3. I'm moving Mobile Safari back to the browsers that don't pass [[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

== Opera (Wii) Browser ==

Nobody has yet posted Internet Channel results, or would it go under Opera Mobile/Mini?
Should be posted at all? [[User:Refresh100|Refresh100]] ([[User talk:Refresh100|talk]]) 22:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

== Note or no note? ==

So far, nobody has objected to my idea of noting the use of first-party sources above the passing browsers table. But when I added it, it got reverted with a comment that I don't understand. I know that anyone can see that the sources are first party by checking them, but I also think that this would quell any future arguments. So, what do you say? --[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] ([[User talk:Unknownwarrior33|talk]]) 00:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
:Such a note is irrelevant to the Acid3 test and doesn't belong in the article, IMO it takes away from the encyclopedic tone of the article and make it read more like a blog or a message-board. Problems with the article can be tagged, pointed out in the talk page, etc --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a tag for this particular issue? -unknownwarrior33 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/132.161.196.74|132.161.196.74]] ([[User talk:132.161.196.74|talk]]) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "[not in citation given]" ==

I removed the "[not in citation given]" tag. I don't know what is missing in the sources:
By the end of March 2008, early development versions of the Presto and WebKit layout engines scored 100/100 on the test and rendered the test page correctly.[16][17][18]
At the time, no browser using the Presto or WebKit layout engines passed the performance aspect of the test.
<small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Is anybody finding some source for Chrome, iCab and Iris-Browser?

== Score goes down ==
I have noticed that if you run the acid3 test on IE8 and chrome, then click on "this reference rendering" link, then hit the back button, the acid3 test will run again and get a score that is 1 point lower (chrome4 went from 100 to 99, IE8 went down from 12 to 11). This happens every time. Firefox does not rerun the page, instead just instantly loading the final image from memory.
I believe this should be noted, but I am not sure how it should be presented.
--[[User:Taltamir|Taltamir]] ([[User talk:Taltamir|talk]]) 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:This can't go to the article as it is original research, If you want to look more into the problem you could try reporting the bug in chrome. BTW, IE8 scores 20, it stays in 12 for a while but the test is actually still running and it eventually goes up to 20 --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 08:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:Firefox not rerunning the page is Mozilla Bug 421131 - Acid3 breaks backwards / forwards buttons. If you use the back button drop-down to select the bottom entry that had the title "The Acid3 Test", Firefox does rerun the page and does not lose a point.[[User:Wgianopoulos|Wgianopoulos]] ([[User talk:Wgianopoulos|talk]]) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
::so... if I make a website detailing this issue and then link it as a reference, is it allowed for inclusion then? Would a post in my blog suffice? --[[User:Taltamir|Taltamir]] ([[User talk:Taltamir|talk]]) 11:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
::: @Chris Ssk - I'm fairly sure checking to see if a piece of software behaves a certain way does not constitute the kind of "original research" prohibited in Wikipedia's guidelines - this has been discussed a few times in various places around WP_talk:, but perhaps it's time it was stated somewhere explicitly [[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

== Konqueror 4.4 released ==

Has anybody tried acid3 with the new version of Konqueror? I'd like to know if anything has changed. --[[User:Anttipng|Anttipng]] ([[User talk:Anttipng|talk]]) 02:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

== Chronological order for browsers that pass ==

Why the chronological order for browsers that pass? The order in which they passed doesn't matter; what matters is which browsers pass, and which versions of those browsers pass. In a few years when this section has many browsers in it, it should be easy to find whether a particular browser passes, and the versions that pass. Let's simplify the layout by putting all browsers that use a particular engine together. We can list the most popular engines first, so the order would be Trident, Gecko, WebKit, Presto, etc. Do we even need to list the dates in the table? What is the importance of them? -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

:For the dates , the dates are so important because it is a race between Internet browsers ,and release date is important . Safari is always proud that it is te first to pass [[acid2]] test and the first to pass [[acid3]] test . also internet explorer has the shame because it is the last major browser to pass acid2 test . We can not take away that pride or shame even if we love internet explorer more than safari .For me i prefer dates ro be in a seperate column [[User:Melnakeeb|Melnakeeb]] ([[User talk:Melnakeeb|talk]]) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
::No, the Acid3 test is '''not''' a race. The importance of the Acid3 test is absolutely not which browser passes first! The importance is that when browsers pass, then the features tested by Acid3 can be used by web developers and they can be confident that their sites will work. I think the emphasis put on dates makes readers think that's an important piece of information, when in fact it's trivia. Internet Explorer was shamed into passing Acid2, and now that it passes Acid2 it should be praised. Currently, IE performs very poorly on Acid3 and is being shamed. When IE passes, it should be praised, because by passing, that makes like easier for web developers and lets users enjoy better websites. -- [[User:Schapel|Schapel]] ([[User talk:Schapel|talk]]) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I Agree with you . Acid 3 is not a race for users and developers ,but it is for their good . But isn't market share of an Internet browser, get affected by its standards-compliance ?;at least in the [[Browser Wars#The second browser war|The second browser war]] ;making market share degradation and elevation of an Internet Browser hard to understand if dates are removed . I am not trying to start an endless (which one is praised or or shamed ) debate ; I am only discussing the importance of dates. [[User:Melnakeeb|Melnakeeb]] ([[User talk:Melnakeeb|talk]]) 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

::how about this change? I made the table sortable and included a new column releasedate. this is maybe the path between both solutions. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I'l tell ya what I think about it: It's a darned fine and overdue idea. Good work! (It's seems so obvious, ''now''; why didn't we do this sooner?) <i>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:JohnFromPinckney|JohnFromPinckney]] ([[User talk:JohnFromPinckney|talk]])</i> 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

:::It is magnificant !! Reader can choose to sort by date or group by engine . It is no longer an editor problem . Well done ! [[User:Melnakeeb|Melnakeeb]] ([[User talk:Melnakeeb|talk]]) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== Windows Mobile 6 ==

I think Windows Mobile 6 needs to be updated to about version 6.5.5
wolfblake 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
:If you mean Internet Explorer Mobile 6, thats the version that comes with WinMo 6.5 and as far as I know it hasnt changed in any of the 6.5.x versions. A new version of IEM will come with WinMo 7 --[[User:Chris Ssk|<font color ="black">'''Chris'''</font> <font color ="red">'''Ssk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Chris Ssk|talk]]</sub> 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

== Reference Hardware and Desktop Browsers ==

The current [[Acid3#Browsers that pass|Browsers that pass]] section separates passing browsers into "Desktop Browsers" with a performance column and "Mobile Browsers" with no performance column. The last column is excluded for mobile browsers as they "cannot be run on the reference hardware" - however many desktop browsers can't be run on the reference hardware either - Trident, while unlikely to pass anytime soon, is one example that can never pass the performance test. Surely this section should be divided into two tables - "Mac Browsers" and "Browsers on Other Platforms".

In particular, an affected case that comes to mind is the Opera 10.50 browser, of which a stable release is out on Windows, but has not been released at all for Mac. I think it's reasonable to assume that 10.50 would most likely pass perf. if the reference hardware were a PC, however as it's physically impossible to test it, so it technically belongs in the second table as it can't be run on reference hardware.

Thoughts? [[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:what about bootcamp? it was only mentioned that is the latest mac-HARDWARe, nobody said something about the os! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
:: Excellent point. Never mind then. [[User_talk:Lucideer|<sub style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">ɹəə</sub>]][[User:Lucideer|<span style="font:bold 14px arial;color:#f27;">pıɔnı</span>]] 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:14, 11 August 2024

Defunct

[edit]

All three Acid tests originally hosted at acidtests.org are no longer present. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. When I go to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ in my FF browser I get an Acid3 test showing me a result of 97/100. What exact test (or tests) are you missing? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and History Classifications

[edit]

All these discussions are nice and dandy when it comes to describe the acidtest3.org web page and its use, but insofar as the results displayed, the "contemporary" explanations at the end of the paragraphs always become antiquated after a few years pass by! For example, stating that "Both IE 11 and Edge pass with 100/100." in 2014 (or whenever) is nowadays (in 2022) ERRONEOUS! For whatever reason, my own Edge shows 97/100, as do most of my other browsers; of course, there may be other reasons why they don't pass with 100/100 but without MORE DETAILS, it's irrelevant to write it like so and only contributes to wikipedia's reputation about subjective and/or inaccurate contents! Someone with more experience and skills than me should remedy to that - and it'd help if the person is also as objective as possible! (I'm just saying...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzraelDrums (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acid3 successor "WPT"

[edit]

There has been an effort by some W3C and Google folk, from what I gather, to support more recent browser features in the Acid3 test. The test seems to be under a "Web Platform Tests" project (WPT), and is available at http://w3c-test.org/acid/acid3/test.html (HTTP seems to be a requirement for 100/100 instead of HTTPS; browser extensions may mess up results), or alternatively on wpt.live instead of w3c-test.org (as they are mirrors).

Anyway, it might be worth a mention on the article. I'm not sure how it'd be included, though; this article talks about the history of the original Acid3 test, and slapping a mention of the updated version (seemingly by different authors) somewhere feels like it wouldn't belong. This is worsened by the fact that the WPT apparently include other tests beyond the Acid3 test. So, I don't know. The whole of the project might be worthy an article of its own. — Avelludo (Talk / Contribs / Log) 03:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing really new in the Acid3 fork: it merely comments out subtests that are no longer correct per current specs. (Very much along the lines of Hixie's 2011 changes.) Why comment them out? Because it means we still run the rest of the test, and thus can notice if anywhere else in the test unexpectedly starts failing.
https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commits/master/acid/acid3 gives the full history, which makes this clear.
The short background here is every browser vendor had essentially done this separately, and having it in a shared location avoids duplication of work or disagreements about which subtests still apply. Gsnedders (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URL is Dead

[edit]

The URL (https://acid3.acidtests.org) returns a site not found error. It looks like the Acid3 test has gone offline Wiichicken (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acid3&oldid=1239821667"