Forum Moderators: not2easy
With today's release of Mac OS X 10.4.3, Apple's Safari RSS (version 2.0.2/416.12) is the first (publicly-released, non-beta, non-preview) browser to successfully pass the Acid2 test.
Dave Hyatt had worked out all the bugs to allow Safari to pass the Acid2 test back on April 27, 2005 [weblogs.mozillazine.org]. It's good to see this make it to the shipping version of Safari. :)
Link to the Acid2 Browser Test [webstandards.org]
Added: Maybe should have put this in HTML and Browsers [webmasterworld.com], but the Acid2 test seems to be mostly about CSS rendering. :)
Go ALL new releases from now ~ and big congrats to Safari!
All I can say is WOW does IE butcher that image or what!
Firefox looks to be about 90% so I guess that explains why I can't get one layout to work in Firefox.
Interesting post!
Freq---
[news.com.com...]
Although, to their credit, the MS team is paying attention and moving (now) in a standards-compliant direction. It's just that their focus in IE7 will be more about security and interface improvements.
But happy to be yet one step closer!
[edited by: Josefu at 10:26 am (utc) on Nov. 2, 2005]
but if all browsers passed the Acid test its length would only be... one.
I don't think this is necessarily true is it? Just because (if/when) everyone passes Acid2, doesn't mean everyone will display everything the same. Or will it?
Just because (if/when) everyone passes Acid2, doesn't mean everyone will display everything the same. Or will it?
Why there can't be just one rendering engine used by all I don't know.
they implement their own form fields with their own size (too big), borders (too big, not changeable), font type/size (dictated) and colours (not changeable) to make it look os x like, thereby rendering my webpage design to a complete mess.
to push ones understanding of form design against free creativity of webmasters is not what i want from a good browser. shame on safari!
my 2 cents
I wasn't aware that Opera was making a real effort to improve
With Hakon Lie as the CTO at Opera, support for CSS standards is bound to be important, I'd think. He was the original force behind CSS. Also, check out the opera.com website. "Look, Ma, no tables!" And it's valid XHTML 1.0 strict as well.
to push ones understanding of form design against free creativity of webmasters
Every browser uses it's own form fields. If you want to control this to the pixel, you can use Flash to design your forms. (You can even add custom fonts, little sound effects and animations to your form fields, if desired.)
Now, my $0.02 here would be a brief statement about usability, user expectations, and some goal analysis for when you are soliciting user data, but I won't step on the toes of creativity. ;)
Every browser uses it's own form fields. If you want to control this to the pixel, you can use Flash to design your forms.
nah, "use flash" is a knockout argument, that i cannot accept. we're talking html/css/javascript here.
conventional style methods are absolutely sufficient in this instance.
firefox and ie have their own form fields, but firstly they are pretty similar and secondly they allow much more restyling than safari without forcing the web designer to accept the settings.
website usability and user expectations is imho for sure responsibility of the web designer, not the browser programmer.
speaking of creativity, form data security is certainly an important point, but ie and firefox handle it without this much inconvenience for the web designer.
only case that i can think of in this context is the upload field in firefox, that can't be styled explorer-like (problems with border, size and font). they did this in order to avoid webmasters tricking users into submitting data.
i think constraining webmasters in the way safari does, is not the way to go. at this point, apple really annoys me.
If you want liberation from artistic constraints, use a different medium. This medium is designed (well and successfully designed!) to be NOT what you want. It's designed to be usable by severely visually handicapped or even blind surfers; it's designed to be used on display devices of all different kinds, including devices that do not render any graphics other than ASCII letters. And it does that well. What it doesn't do -- is left for the creators of some other medium to achieve.
we're not talking about artistical fuss. i'm not really a web designer, rather a part-time website programmer.
i was talking about form fields that are rendered like mess on safari.
i was also not talking about portability. this is a completely different area.
i was talking about visibility, where apple sets its own "standards" in the case of form field display.
of course this could be expanded to a more general perspective, but that was not the point. no use for an in-depth discussion for me here.
Why there can't be just one rendering engine used by all I don't know. - jazzle
This has to do with the freedom of choice and the (now revitalized) spirit of competition! :)
From my PC only perspective the KHTML and Opera teams have been making some really big strides in improving their rendering engines.
Firefox still has a few things to work out and Gecko 1.8 is of course not going to go live via Firefox 1.5 and pass the test. Anyone take a look at the step ny step instructions and find anything they are using live that Firefox doesn't support?
Having said that, you should realise that there are NO standards for how form elements appear as they are (or used to be) supplied by the operating system and not by the browser itself. That's why MSIE(Mac) uses Aqua for radio buttons and checkboxes, though not for other elements.
You'll be happy to hear that the Safari team have announced that they're introducing the option of having your buttons Aqua-styled OR CSS-formattable starting from the 'dull grey square' look that you're familiar with. Check out the Surfin' Safari blog for details ;)
