Talk:Acid3

What is being tested?

I have changed the article to reflect this sentiment: "Acid3 is primarily concerned with ECMAScript and the DOM though Selectors Level 3, Media Queries, and data: URIs are also tested."[1] There is very little CSS and SVG in this test.

From Ian's comments: "there are 6 buckets with 16 tests each, plus four special tests (0, 97, 98, and 99)"

Update: This quote is now gone from the source code. It's still true, though.--itpastorn (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bucket 1: DOM Traversal, DOM Range, HTTP
• Bucket 2: DOM2 Core and DOM2 Events
• Bucket 3: DOM2 Views, DOM2 Style, and Selectors (CSS 3 selectors)
• Bucket 4: HTML and the DOM
• Bucket 5: Tests from the Acid3 Competition (contribued by the "public"; SVG, HTML, Unicode...)
• Bucket 6: ECMAScript

Test 99 "The weirdest bug ever"

• Firefox tracking bug
• Firefox tracking table
• Webkit tracking bug
• Web Standards Project Announcement

--itpastorn (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Modified: --itpastorn (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the announcement from The Web Standards Project, the following is being tested:

• DOM2 Core
• DOM2 Events
• DOM2 HTML
• DOM2 Range
• DOM2 Style (getComputedStyle, …)
• DOM2 Traversal (NodeIterator, TreeWalker)
• DOM2 Views (defaultView)
• ECMAScript
• HTML4 (<object>, <iframe>, …)
• HTTP (Content-Type, 404, …)
• Media Queries
• Selectors (:lang, :nth-child(), combinators, dynamic changes, …)
• XHTML 1.0
• CSS2 (@font-face)
• CSS2.1 (’inline-block’, ‘pre-wrap’, parsing…)
• CSS3 Color (rgba(), hsla(), …)
• CSS3 UI (’cursor’)
• data: URIs

Tests added by the open competition, including some on SVG, is not listed by WaSP. --itpastorn (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Even more links about what is being tested:

• John Resig - Acid 3 Tackles ECMAScript
• SVG added through the open competition (From the guy who contributed most of them...) See also this message on the SVG mailing list and this one.

--itpastorn (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am adding this link about the Ahem font for future reference as well. It also features prominently in MS CSS 2.1 tests. And we really should have references to the formal test suites as well.--itpastorn (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The test for the downloaded font is the white 'X' with a fuchsia background. If the font is downloaded the it will not be visible as the font being used is the Ahem test font -- the glyph for the X character is a rectangle with no padding, so correctly rendered it will be a white rectangle in the upper right corner of the test, on a white background so is invisible when rendered correctly. I have tested the webkit nightlies, but am unable to test IE. -- 24.130.131.58 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Moved to this section.)--itpastorn (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Linkdump: CSS selectors tested --itpastorn (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

pictures

How about to add the "reference-picture" in ACID2 and add the other browsers status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.243.167 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Plesese, someone use a standard pixel and upload to common. Matthew_hk tc 11:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a new picture for every nightly build of webkit or any other engine? If someone could help me improve the article instead that would be so much better.--itpastorn (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the current nightly has improved test results over the previous.--toehead2001 (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It is recentism. These screenshots are not notable over time, nor verifiable. --Fenring (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point; I agree.--toehead2001 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The screenshots are easily verifiable – just download the software and run it. Whether or not we want to include screenshots of beta software is another issue. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But still not of encyclopedic value. Neither is it of any such value to update them every day.--itpastorn (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for an everyday picture update, but having a small reference about how browsers do on the test is quite useful IMHO. --HeffeQue (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable means the claim has been published by a reliable source. Downloading the software and testing it is original research. --Fenring (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of the pictures

I just opened the test in FFox 3 because I wanted to source my Ian Hickson quote in the article. 2.0.12 got 52 - not 50. This illustrates how pictures really should be coming from someone with formal testing experience, an not from us random Wikipedians. (Random? Yes, I do know quite a bit about this subject, but I've not done any formal tests.)

Improve the article by finding such pictures, from stable browser releases, would be very helpful, of encyclopedic value and not original research.--itpastorn (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am now reverting

Any addition of images from non-stable browser releases. Some people are adding them and seemingly do not read read this talk page. Until arguments in line with WP policy are put forward that demonstrate the encyclopedic value of these images, I will continue this habit.--itpastorn (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The test is final - confirm scores (and replace images)

This is what I get on Win XP. Please confirm or comment my scores:

Opera 9.26

47/100

no boxes at all

MSIE 7.0.5730.13

12/100

And that horrible, unreadable image

Firefox 2.0.12

50/100

Decent images only gray boxes

I have not tested in stable Safari (on Mac) since the test went final, Safari 3 beta on Windows gets 40/100 and no gray boxes

Neither have I tested Konqueror 4.0.1 yet, but I have no reason to distrust 61/100 as stated in the article.--itpastorn (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, I uploaded the Acid3 Test screenshot with the current score of 52/100. Not sure how you wanted to link it up. Image:Acid3 ff20012 score52.png MarsInSVG (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attitude of layout engine teams

If someone could verify the following - which is my OR - it would also perhaps be of some benefit. It really seems that Dave Hyatt/Apple/Webkit see the Acid3 as a way to advertise themselves. The fury that they have shown in fixing bugs, compared to Mozilla - mimicking the behavior of both teams for Acid2 - is somewhat telling. And even though Konqueror has supported all CSS3 selectors for quite some time, so was it not until those selectors showed up in Acid3 that Webkit started implementing what was lacking.--itpastorn (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good for them! All these means is that the Acid tests are helping promote web standards and browser innovation. Masterhomer 22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a comment I wrote as criticism or endorsement of any team. It was about the impact of the test. It was about trying to improve the article. I would like to write about it, but have no sources. So how can I do it without it being original research?--itpastorn (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dave Hyatt, et al, has started blogging about their efforts to make Webkit pass Acid3. Posting the link here until I rework the article text. Surfin Safari: Acid3 --itpastorn (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

adding images from beta releases

There is no reason not to add late beta images. Acid3 isn't even complete, they are still adding 16 more tests to it, so all of the images will be wrong in two-three weeks anyway. So if we follow the rational of not adding beta images, we should get rid of all of the images except for the test rendering.Austin512 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is precisely a good reason for not adding more non-perennial content to this article. I think a timeline (as in Acid2) would be more appropriate than screenshots. And afaik, the test is in a "final review" state. --Fenring (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Acid3 renders a 50 on Windows machines running FF 2.x, on Mac's running FF it renders a 52. Austin512 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the screenshots should stay, since they're fairly stable and give a feel for how various browsers perform. They aren't finalized yet, obviously, but they are still useful. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an answer to Austin512's comment when he (she?) removed all pictures with the following explanation: "Seeing as though Acid3 isn't finalized, and there are still 16 tests to be added, the screenshots aren't of encyclopedic value because hey will soon be meaningless."

Technically that is part true and part untrue. The lasts 16 tests have been added, and I have put information about their contents in the article. All 100 tests are in place, but they are not officially declared stable. Having images - with appropriate disclaimers - is therefore of some encyclopedic value (IMHO). It will give a glimpse of how the test will look in a browser of today. What I am against is updating those images with every new release of WebKit nightly or Minefield. Since:

• The exact score is not certain (indeed I got a 52 on FFox on Windows once).
• The results are not guaranteed to come from a professionally conducted and scientifically controlled test.
• Even though I prefer open source software, it will give misleading impressions. We have no idea what Opera or microsoft are doing behind the scenes. Daily updates are therefore misleading.
• Daily updates is about tracking progress. That is recentism. Daily updates of this kind are an appropriate topic for a blog, but not for an encyclopedia.
• And yes, the test may change as well. Probably only slightly, but it may affect the score.

Summary: Keeping the images from stable software is a reasonable compromise between the no images and every possible image camps.--itpastorn (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

HI : french and new on wikipedia... : I would like to add my picture which is not one of the Konqueror beta-version. You can find it at http://rom1dep.ifrance.com/desk/score.jpg I would like to know wether or not it's correct to publish it on this page... thanks

Images are best uploaded to Wikimedia commons. See Wikipedia:Images for more instructions. If you have a screenshot taken in a controled environment I think we will allow it among the rest. It is still formally original research though. But until Acid3 is finalized this is the consensus.--itpastorn (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

adding betas

I agree that adding betas and prereleases are recentism and shouldn't be added. Adding misrenderings of stable browsers aren't recentism because in a few years the browsers will still be in use, and the screenshots will still be valid representations of misrenderings. Current betas and prereleases won't be in use in a years time, and so adding screenshots from these releases don't have encyclopedic value.

The fact the the test isn't finalized doesn't matter much (I know I'm flip flopping here) because the images are only examples of how it could be misrendered with respect to the example rendering. Even if the final release of Acid3 produces slightly different renderings, the current examples will be close enough, and will become slightly outdated as the browsers become updated anyway.

Austin512 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution for betas

As the test is final, I think we should have some table (and perhaps screenshots) of available development releases. But in order for this to have encyclopedic value I think it should be from nightlies from the same date the test was released.

Under the heading compliant applications I suggest a table like this:

Date	Browser	Type	Score	Notes
2008-03-03	MSIE 7	Official Release	10	Public betas not available
2008-03-03	Konqueror 4.0.2	Official Release	64	What is the score from the latest developer build? Notes on the rendering...
2008-03-03	Opera Build 9815	Non public build	65	Descent rendering. Does not download font. Does not implement text-shadow. Top left iframe ("FAIL") not hidden.
2008-03-03	Minefield (Firefox)	Non public build	67	Descent rendering. Does not download font. Does not implement text-shadow.
2008-03-03	Webkit 525.12	Non public build	87	Descent rendering.
2008-03-05	MSIE 8 beta 1	Beta	17	Has parsing and major rendering issues [2][3][4][5]--itpastorn (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add Official releases and public betas (as of 3 March 2008) as well. But again, that info is in the images above (provided we put in correct alt attribute text for visually disabled readers).--itpastorn (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this source as to today's "standings": http://ivan.fomentgroup.org/blog/2008/03/04/acid3-and-konqueror/--itpastorn (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a table should be added however, I would change the order of the headings slightly, group them by: Browser Name/Build, Release Type, Rendering Engine, Date Last Checked, Score, Notes. Essentially we are only interested in the most recent scores for stable/beta/alpha builds, we are not looking to document the date each browser made a step forward. Fair enough documenting 100% completed tests. --80.6.152.199 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to have the standing on the release date of the test, as in my suggested table above. Maybe we should have the very latest results as well - I do not see the encyclopedic value in that though. I do agree that we should not add a new row for every new point scored in a nightly build. That would be ridiculous. Rearranging and renaming the columns is OK by me. However, I think it might be of some value to have them in sync with the table in the Acid2 article.--itpastorn (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It makes even less sense to list how well development releases do on the test, but not update them as they are developed. If there is any sort of table, it should have one row per browser (which lists the score on the latest stable release) or two rows per browser (one for the latest stable release and one for the latest preview release). Alternatively, we could have two tables, one for stable releases and one for preview releases. Currently, all this information is in the article, and personally I think it would be more readable if it were presented in table form, instead of awkward paragraph form for Compliance efforts and just screenshots for Non-compliant applications. At the very least, if all the information is left in the article, information about stable and preview releases should be put into the same form, whether that form is a table or screenshots. -- Schapel (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, the reason not to mention preview realeases scores is that the informations need more updates. And it's against wp's guidelines which say informations must be notable over time. The risk is that users don't update the values at each preview release. They do now (despite the comments), because Acid3 is in the spotlight. But will they keep doing this ? See, e.g this table is not updated very often. We don't want an article with obsolete informations. However, I think we won't prevent users to add preview scores, for the moment. So your proposition (one table, two columns) makes sense. --Fenring (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

@Fenring: Hear, hear! @Schapel. There is a reason why there is nothing but screenshots so far, and that reason is that no one has bothered to write any encyclopedic text! I will stub-mark the sections. Seems I get to do it as well (right now I consider myself the main contributor to this article). I don't mind but I've not got 26 hours to the day.--itpastorn (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. Instead of "encyclopedia text" we should put the information about stable releases in a table. If we decide to include information about preview releases also, that information should also be in a table in the same format, if not in the very same table. Perhaps I should put all the information in a table, then we can discuss whether it's readable and whether it will be kept updated. -- Schapel (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I will proceed with the plan to put the stable and development releases in a consistent format in one table, instead of having the compliance effort and non-compliant applications in two different sections with inconsistent formats. If anyone has any unaddressed concerns, please speak now. -- Schapel (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Don't be dissuaded or distracted by people who don't understand the difference between "recentism" and "up-to-date information"; our readers are interested in these details, and they're the ones we're here to serve. -/- Warren 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Minefield 3.0b5pre hits 70 points. --Ilhanli (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest grouping the rows by layout engine. And one column for stable screenshots, and another for latest... --Fenring (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try it. I'll order the table by increasing score for development version. -- Schapel (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that table you've started is useful. However I will duplicate the image I had as an illustration to how the test works and put it back up. I'm sure one of the webkit fanboys soon will replace the image in the table with an image with the current score (90)...--itpastorn (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Minefield some times hits 69, and sometimes 70 points (on my PC). What do you thik, Will we write 70? --144.122.250.130 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry, not looged in --Ilhanli (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same with FFox 2.0.12 (50/51/52), Minefield (69/70) and in my experience webkit nightly. I downloaded the latest version yesterday on a Mac and only got 89. I think it would be better to have a paragraph saying that the exact scores are not 100 % reliable. Currently the images are not sourced at all. We do not know if they were made during laboratory like circumstances or not. The screenshots only give, quoting from an earlier discussion, an "in the ballpark idea" about the current status.--itpastorn (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Acidtests are linking back

I hope this is in recognition of our work (probably mostly on the Acid2 article). But it is also a responsibility. How can we improve the article? More editors are welcome!--itpastorn (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Acid 3 finished?

Maybe betas shouldn't be added. OK. According to the article, the Gecko development team have both a bug and spreadsheet to track progress with the test. A link from the BugZilla page shows the test has been completed.[6] And just my two cents:

• 
  Acid3 as rendered by Mozilla Firefox 3.0 beta 3 on Mac OS X

Imnotyouok (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That link points to a blog which generally is a good resource, but in this case it was wrong, as stated further down in the discussion.--itpastorn (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this[7] the test is now officially released. 77.125.91.97 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a test suite

This is from a private mail to me from Ian H:

Acid tests aren't test suites, they're demo pages that attempt to exercise many aspects of standards in order to encourage people to pressure browser vendors to consider standards-compliance a priority. If browser vendors made test suites and fixed the bugs that the test suites found, then they wouldn't have any bugs left for Acid tests to pick on.

This means that both this article and Acid2 really should be re-worded.--itpastorn (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what a test suite is. It just doesn't test all features of the specs tested. The nuance about the purpose and the targeted public doesn't change the nature of a test. --Fenring (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A test suite is a collection of individual standalone tests. Acid tests are not. Annevk (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On the sites http://www.webstandards.org/ and http://www.acidtests.org/ Acid2 or Acid3 are consistently called "test page(s)" or simply "test(s)", never "suite(s)". So, does anyone have a more authoritative source than that?--itpastorn (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But they meet the definition of Test Suites , don't they? ffm 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope! One might tentatively argue that Acid3 is a test harness, but it is not a suite. BTW, considering the discussion on the Acid2 page about my perceived OR when I deduced through simple reasoning (and provided resources) that IE 8 beta 1 fails. I have sourced the use of the word page. Who can source the use of the word suite?--itpastorn (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Synthesizing material to reach a conclusion certainly is original research. On the other hand, using simple terms in a way that everyone agrees on is not. What do you mean by "source" the use of words? Just use words. -- Schapel (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shift+click A

Should this information be in the article? It has now been removed twice.

Personally I think it makes sense, as opening the results in a new tab to me is preferable to opening them in a JavaScrip alert box. The fact that it is possible to see the results by clicking the A is not obvious in any way, unless you accidentally hover over the letter. That you get a different result from clicking while holding down shift is even harder to know.

Maybe one could rephrase the instruction, but I do think it is of value to the reader.--itpastorn (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Betas

Not including information on beta releases is a great way to artifically reduce the quality and usefulness of this article. This is not a good goal -- think about what our readers would hope to find when visiting Wikipedia; they want to know the latest information that we can get from reliable sources. This includes the current development state of major browsers, especially when it's something like Internet Explorer 8. -/- Warren 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all it is a matter of WP policy. In what way is it not original research? I have proposed a solution on this very talk page, where we could have the information about "compliance efforts" (good catch renaming the section, BTW), written in such a way that it is of encyclopedic value, and not recentism.--itpastorn (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't be trying to use the "recentism" argument on an article that describes something that was officially announced just three days ago. Also, you are misunderstanding the thrust of the recentism essay. The goal is to dissuade people from adding information that isn't important or doesn't have long-term value. In the context of Acid3, the state of browser support is absolutely vital to the topic, because it is very much a current issue, one that our readers will be interested in tracking. Also, original research is effectively countered by reliable sources, and in the case of software, OR arguments are weakened by the use of screenshots. -/- Warren 13:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that including the latest information with regards to preview releases and betas is very important to the article. Showing the differences between version X and version Y of the same browser gives the reader a perspective on the difficulty and progress of implementing standards compliance in browsers. Because browser standards implementation develops rapidly compared to other types of software (e.g. Word Processing), it is especially important to have the most up-to-date information. Secondly, people who come to this web page will be looking at which browser performs best, perhaps to make an informed decision about which browser to use, or which browser to test their web content in. Due to the nature of the Acid3 test (it was explicitly designed so that none of the current browsers pass the test) I believe it is very important to show the renderings of upcoming browsers. - ARC Gritt^TALK 13:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nightlies are unstable, unfinished softwares with experimental features and regressions. These are definitely not long-term informations. If you consider that the percentages of passed test is an important information, why don't you provide more details about e.g which subtests are passed and which are not ? This is crazy. Who needs that ? It's not encyclopedic. Though, a notable information that will be in the article forever is the first engine (beta or not) to pass the test (it means fully). Look at the Acid2 article. It's much more informative than these everchanging values. And Warren, the inclusion of this article is not recentism. It is there to stay. It is very persistent information in web history. --Fenring (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at how ACID2 does it, and perhaps copy from there? I do think noting the status of the various engines at the release of the test could be interesting and useful. IE7 had 17 points as of the release, safari has 33 points, etc. That gives readers an idea of how things started out with the official test. I will say regardless, this test is quite important in the world of web programming and browser development. All major browsers still don't pass ACID2 in their release versions, still waiting on IE8 here. :) I'm just commenting here because I read the article. LinEagle (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Acid2 article shows when each browser passed for "compliant" applications and screenshots for "non-compliant" applications. Because no browser passes Acid3, that means we're left with screenshots for each browser until some browsers pass. The score at time of release has no purpose, because many browsers (especially Safari and also Firefox) have been specifically fixing bugs that lower their score for months, so they do not how how each browser "started out". -- Schapel (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, of encyclopedic value is, IMO, not so much the scores per se as how this test has caused vendors to improve their products. I can do without the scores at the time of the release per se. But what happened from the date Anne V K first told the world about the test until it was released? What has happened since? Since this article is about the test, its details and purpose, and its impact - not about browsers! - this should be the focus of the article. And I note that apart from small grammar fixes so far I am the only one who actually is contributing substance to the article in this regard. That's the reason I removed the screenshot with Webkit scoring 90 and reinstated the screenshot where webkit scored 88. It illustrates the text better.--itpastorn (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The new table

Kudos to Schapel for his work in getting the table together. It looks good. I have one comment, though... there's no information as to which release is referenced by the screenshots. Could this be incorporated somehow? -/- Warren 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CSS is a technology, described in a spec that may be at a draft stage. Check the W3C standardization process.

It is factually wrong to call downloadable fonts and text-shadow drafts. They are CSS technologies described in drafts.

It is factually wrong to say that Acid3 requires support for the drafts in which these technologies are mentioned. The specs contain many things not in the test.

CSS is a technology, a declarative markup language to be more exact, described in specs that may be at a draft stage. Check the W3C standardization process.

Also, if you look at the specs, almost every CSS spec is at the draft stage. However, individual items from those specs are at a very stable state. Therefore it is actually somewhat misleading to call downloadable fonts and text-shadow drafts (they are not mentioned in the Beijing document, but have been on the CSS mailing list).

You may also see that some specs are about to be demoted from the CR to the WD stage. And the only recommendations that are finished (1.0 and 2.0) have been declared obsolete.

And yes, the W3C also call their languages technologies: W3C technology stack --itpastorn (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a big pile of steaming........ stretch.

I have a novel idea for you: RESEARCH YOUR CLAIMS. Do it. Don't fucking argue. Don't fucking edit war. Don't fucking engage in original research. None of those things are welcome on Wikipedia. An utterly simple Google search on the term "CSS Technology" doesn't return anything interesting about Cascading Syle Sheets, and only about 30,000 results total. ("css technologies" returns less than 3,000 hits). The W3C does not describe CSS as a "technology". I will repeat that in bold letters: The W3C does not describe CSS as a "technology". The word does not appear in the specification! This means that we do not describe it as a technology, either. This is not up for debate or discussion. As a Wikipedian who is bound by WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, you absolutely do not reserve the right to invent terminology, or to promote rarely-used terms. CSS is a specification, not a technology. It says so right in the title. CSS is a standard, not a technology. CSS is a language, not a technology.

Now before your male ego gets all fired up for an argument because I've just told you that you're wrong... STOP. THINK. RESEARCH. Do you want to do this using the valid, authoritative information we have available to us, or not? CSS3-text clearly identifies itself as a working draft. CSS3-webfonts clearly identifies itself as a working draft. The beijing document is completely irrelevant because it doesn't mention CSS3-text and CSS3-webfonts. Acid3 tests things that are in the CSS3-text and CSS3-webfonts documents, and doesn't mention the beijing document at all. Acid3 uses things that are declared in draft standards. That's the bottom line. You're wrong -- don't fight this, you won't win. -/- Warren 23:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion:

Guys, calm down.

Warren, Please be WP:CIVIL. User:Itpastorn hasn't swore, yelled (IN CAPS), etc. He just reverted you, once.

Itpastorn: they are actualy "W3C Working Drafts". However, they are drafts of technologies. You can call them both, or just go with W3C Working Drafts of the CSS standard. ffm 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions. Yes or no, A or B. (1) Is CSS part of what W3C calls the "technology stack"? (2) Is the word "draft" used by the W3C to denote a document at a certain stage (A) or something described within such a document (B) according to the described standardization process?

BTW, the Beijing document was not introduced to support the claim that downloadable fonts and text-shadow per se have passed the draft stage. It was an example about how the W3C CSS Working group are trying to illustrate the principle that some parts of CSS 3 are implementable even if they are described in specs that as whole still are at the draft stage. I did not propose we put any info about the current readiness of a certain CSS technology in the article. I have no inclination to wade through the mailing list archives and other discussions from the W3C Working Group. I proposed we'd remove it, as it is quite irrelevant to the article - and when badly worded also misleading.

@Firefoxman. Thanks for your admonition. I am actually very calm as I have researched this issue by reading quite a lot of W3C documents in my day, as well as having participated on the CSS WG public mailing list and the WHATWG mailing list for quite some time now, and I am not shaken at all by Warren's screaming and cursing. I know my W3C terminology.

--itpastorn (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think what W3C does with CSS can be called "technology". It just says how the markup is to be interpreted. The "technology" part of realizing that is left to the browser makers. I think a better working would be "...downloadable fonts and text shadow specifications, which are under consideration by W3C for standardization". And those who are not comfortable with the word "standardization" (W3C isn't a standards body, it cannot propose standards; it can only do recommendations), replace it with "recommendation"-derived word of your choice. --soum ^talk 05:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording is fine by me. Go ahead, make the edit.--itpastorn (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the edits along with a couple of other changes. Feel free to modify it as necessary. One thing I would like to point out: "In order to render the page with the required pixel perfection..." - the rendering cannot be pixel perfect with the reference rendering, nor will it be identical across browsers as the browsers handle text rendering differently, especially subpixel rendering. So, its better not to mention being "pixel-perfect". --soum ^talk 10:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Soum, I think on the same browser/platform, the test and the reference rendering must be pixel-identical. Even if the reference rendering is different across different browsers. --Fenring (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I am not getting you. Are you implying there are multiple reference renderings, one for each OS/browser combo? --soum ^talk 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am. If you look at the source code of the reference rendering page, you'll notice it's not a raster image, but html/css instead (that uses simple features implemented by every current UA). The rendering must be the same with this simple way and the complex-test way, for one user-agent. But it not required to render the same across browsers. --Fenring (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. --soum ^talk 15:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more notes about sources

Since I believe myself to be the one who has contributed most of the factual content about what is being tested, how the "buckets" work and get their color, etc, I think I should explain my sources a bit more clearly. Not every claim is validated with a footnote right now. My main source is the source code of the test, which means that it is verifiable, but not in a simple fashion - even though Ian has put many helpful comments in the source (I've studied it thoroughly). When WaSP releases its companion guide we will get a better resource. Until that time comes did I however believe that people might want to know more about the test than what the current score is for browser X. Footnotes will be provided in due time!

The test does not test compliance with the Web Fonts draft, as it is not a full test suite. My reference was not the full draft but one item in it. For example, Acid3 does not test "font-stretch" or "unicode-range". Downloadable fonts is however a part of this spec that is in very high demand and therefore is unofficially declared implementable. I would not dream of saying that in the article, as it would take me a long time to dig through the mailing list and bug databases in order to source it. But this is a talk page and I want to explain my thinking.

Similarly, the test does not test for compliance with the CSS Text Level 3 draft. Hyphenation is one example of what is not being tested. "Punctuation-trim" is another. Whitespace, word-spacing and letter-spacing, OTOH, are in. And the much longed for text-shadow. Once again my reference was to an individual item in the draft.

I happen to know that downloadable fonts and text-shadow is in high demand by designers, and it is factually correct that Acid3 checks for it. I could have mentioned letter-spacing, but that topic is not so hot. Therefore I did not prioritize it. BTW, want to know why FFox 2 does not render the buckets as squares, but as lines? It does not support "inline-block"! (Line 36, column 33 in the source code.)

If you think that all of this is OR, by all means feel free to remove the entire section from the article.--itpastorn (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any reliable source that contradicts what's in the article, just put {{fact}} everywhere a citation should be. Someone finds a reliable source that says something different, they can remove your OR, and if someone challenges your OR after it's been marked as needing a citation for a long time, they can remove it. But we shouldn't remove it immediately just because it's OR. -- Schapel (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Current events

Perhaps we should stick this template into the article above the table with the scores:

BTW, Webkit is at 91[8], but since they have no working code at all for SMIL that i know of, I suspect it's going to be a while for them to reach 100.--itpastorn (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The test has been changed slightly. It appears that most browsers will get an automate 1 point bump in their scores. I don't know how to best add this news to the article so I'm posting it here. http://webkit.org/blog/161/webkit-hits-93100-in-acid3/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattersonc (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get 53/100 with FF2 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.143.92 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to replace the screenshots of the test rendering to accoint for the 1 pt. bump? --soum ^talk 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No one objected. So I updated the IE8 image. --soum ^talk 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AcidAhem downloadable font

I first put the info in, then I thought I was wrong and now Anne VK has changed it back to my initial understanding. These are the two lines of code (I split the 2nd one up here to avoid scrolling):

  @font-face { font-family: "AcidAhemTest"; src: url(font.ttf); }
  map::after { position: absolute; top: 17px; left: 639px; content: "X"; 
       background: fuchsia; color: white; font: 20px/1 AcidAhemTest; }

It's line 25 and 26 in the source code of the test.

17 pixels down and 639 pixels to the right. That can't be the purple X (seen above the instructions on the FFox screenshot - right?) But it's still "background: fuchsia". That can't be the red square in the upper right corner - right?

So looking at the screenshot in Opera 9.26 it is in a more reasonable position, almost at the top.

I conclude that Gecko puts this at the wrong place, but it is indeed the white X on fuchsia background that is not supposed to be seen. Buggy browser however might not put the glyph in the correct position. Now I need a source besides the source code of the page - and a good way to phrase the article text...--itpastorn (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The stable photos

I think the stable photos should be permanent, i.e. we don't update them when the new version of the browser goes stable.

The pictures should document browsers as they existed at the moment ACID3 was created. This will show the impact of the test, and how it influenced browser development. In fact I think we should add a column for 'Development build as of the release date of the test'.

The Development column should be kept up to date - for now, until all the browsers pass, and then should be removed.

Comments? Ariel. (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, but add a "current stable" if an updated stable does not completely pass, but is different than the initial version. There's no reason to put up photos of what it looks like when it passes, however. ffm 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to me. There was no "moment of creation" for Acid3. Developers of the browsers were very busy fixing bugs in their browsers for months before Acid3 was officially released. Not to mention that the whole point of Acid3 is to get browser developers to release a stable version that passes the test. To me it serves no purpose and misleads readers of the article as to what the purpose of Acid3 is. How well browsers did before the test was released is of no consequence. I think the table should remain as is, updating the stable and development screenshots as new versions are released, until a stable release of each browser passes Acid3. When that happens, its row should be removed. -- Schapel (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"misleads readers of the article as to what the purpose of Acid3 is" - actually quite the opposite! By showing the sudden improvement in browsers we show how the acid3 test strongly influenced browser development. Look at webkit for example - they would never have made all those fixes if not for acid3. By showing what webkit looked like before acid3 was released we show what acid3 did to browser development. Ariel. (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And exactly how does the current article not show the sudden improvement in browsers and show how the acid3 test strongly influenced browser development? It seems clear to me. What doesn't make sense is showing how browsers did before the test was developed. It serves no purpose. Perhaps after all browsers pass the test, we could show the most popularly used browsers that do not pass and how well they do. That would be useful, to demonstrate that even though all browsers pass, web developers cannot simply use all the features tested, as older browsers that do not pass are still in common use. -- Schapel (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like the idea but I don't think we should have images for each stable revision of a browser, just text to show the progress that was made from the time the Acid3 was released to when it passed.

example:
"History of Acid3 Progress"
• Firefox 2.0.0.9 - 52/100 - 2007/12/01
• Firefox 2.0.1.1.- 74/100 - 2008/04/01
• Firefox 2.1.0.2 - 85/100 - 2008/09/01
pattersonc (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Formal tests

I propose we make a list article about every major test or test suite for browsers. The Acid tests serve a purpose, but passing formal test suites from W3C is more important. I think we should try to raise awareness and improve WP's encyclopedic value by making a page like I have started sketching out at User:itpastorn/browsertests.--itpastorn (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than create a new article, why not add them to the relevant article:

• Comparison of layout engines (XML)
• Comparison of layout engines (XHTML)
• Comparison of layout engines (graphics)
• Comparison of layout engines (CSS)
• Comparison of layout engines (DOM)
• Comparison of layout engines (HTML5)
• Comparison of layout engines (ECMAScript)
• Comparison of layout engines (SVG)

-- Schapel (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do both. I think a new page listing all the tests is a good idea, but I don't think you need to create a page for each test (if you were planning it). Ariel. (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Webkit cheating?

Got myself linked to this trac, and it looks like webkit is doing a special exception incase it is the acid 3 font in order to pass the test. Source: http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/changeset/31322 I refrained from editing before looking into the matter more carefully. Lyml (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla developer Mike Shaver says Safari is treating the Ahem font as a special case: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/ This, of course, defeats the purpose of the Acid3 test. -- Schapel (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that change is quite specific to that font, which of course is generally frowned upon (hardcoding something just to beat an internet standards test doesn't improve anything). However, you should also look at the related bug for this to see both sides: [9]. nneonneo (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At least this act could be cited as proof to support the notion that Apple/Webkit really wanted the PR of winning this race! Personally I also believe people should make a clear distinction between commitment to standards and commitment to winning the Acid3 race per se. In my comment on Mike Shavers blog [10] I have provided a strong arguments (IMHO) that Mozilla might actually display a higher commitment to standards - by postponing some Acid3 fixes! see also this comment on Mozilla Bugzilla

What is of encyclopedic value, though, is what kind of techniques that developers can use and users enjoy, once the technologies in Acid3 have widespread support from stable browsers. (And if a dev is using progressive enhancement, widespread does not mean wait for IE...) Putting such stuff into the article is way more productive than scores or discussing if a browser cheats or not.--itpastorn (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

However the techniques the developers can use are embedded fonts with the name 'Ahem' if you want them to act correctly. This is just silly and should atleast get a mention in the 'pixel perfect' remarks. Which wouldn't be pixel perfect if the test was exactly the same except the font name was changed to something else than 'Ahem'. It's not really fair to call webkit xxx the first browser to render acid3 test pixelperfectly if all they did was make a special hardcoded exception for the test (even though it was just for font rendering in this case, and not for the entire test suite). Well I'll still refrain from editing (as this will surely cause an edit war where people are arguing over silly things like who came first). I don't beleive it is relevant, however should it be noted, it should atleast be the thruth. Lyml (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hixie is now changing the test and the WebKit team will back-out the hardcoded behavior [11]. So, the question isn't relevant anymore from an encyclopedic point of view.

The change means that WebKit r31356 no longer is pixel-perfect. Tim Altman (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of compliant layout engines

I think this section should remain commented out until at least one browser actually passes the Acid3 test. We already have better information about browsers that come close in the previous section. -- Schapel (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point in calling them "partially compliant" -- they either are, or aren't (and all browsers currently released fall into the latter category, especially because of test 26, the performance test). (by the way, I hit enter accidentally while entering the edit summary for [12]; if anyone was curious, I meant to say "Restore comment (no point in saying they are partially compliant)") nneonneo (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having a timeline at all emphasizes the "race" aspect that has nothing to do with what the Acid3 test is about. This race is just leading to anonymous editors coming in and adding inaccurate information to this article. It doesn't really matter when the layout engines that pass were released. I propose simply listing the layout engines that pass after a stable release that passes is released. -- Schapel (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no way of stopping that. Sigh! We just have to revert it. As for Webkit, until the tracking bug is closed or we get an official announcement from dave Hyatt we just have to keep saying any talk of Webkit passing is just a rumor. Right now they are opening more bugs about the glitches related to caching and JavaScript speed. I am quite sure Opera will issue official statements as well. And then we have the issue of Ian saying that he is still not sure exactly what speed measurement that should be used to monitor the third criteria. I.e. the test itself is still not completely finalized!--itpastorn (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think we should eliminate the "browser competition" section. The Acid3 is not a competition. It has nothing to do with which browser does best or which one passes first. I think we should remove all dates from events that don't have to do with the test itself. Stating the current status of the latest stable and development builds is the most important information. -- Schapel (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we should. It was never developed as a competition, and getting to compliance first doesn't achieve anything until all major browsers pass. Plus how can it be a competition when both MS and FF are out of the race? I am removing it. --soum ^talk 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Updates needed

The current nightly build of WebKit passes the Acid3 test 100%. I think we should update the article to reflect this. --156.111.38.218 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this has already been done. Thanks. --156.111.38.218 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WebKit doesn't pass. They still have performance issues. See http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17510. In other news, the WebKit section says, "WebKit build r31356 scores 100/100 and produces a correct rendering", but that's not true. On March 29th, Ian Hickson updated the test again (http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1206756775&count=1) to change anti-aliasing. This caused older WebKit builds to have rendering problems. Tim Altman (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wii Internet Channel

It may be interesting to note that the Acid3 test not only fails on the Wii's Internet Channel, but it completely freezes the browser...as well as the entire system. Its effect is so profound as to force the user to turn off the Wii using the Power button on the console itself, or unplug it.

Just throwing that out there... Kewlio (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)