>>Jens Hatlak wrote:
>Peter Potamus wrote:
>>I tried that site with SM 1.1.14, FF 3.0.5, Chrome Safari 3.2.1,
>>Opera 9.63, and Chrome 220.127.116.11, and a few others,
>>and not one passed.
...because those browsers are **not** W3C-compliant.
In fact, they aren't even compliant as far as the (limited) test goes.
>So, the only thing I can say is
>>there's something wrong with that site.
As Hartmut said, the purpose of the test (as with Acid2 before it)
is to push the boundaries of what the browser writers are doing
WRT compliance to the HTML/CSS standards.
(When everybody was doing much better on Acid2,
Acid3 was devised to move the goal line and increase the challenge
--and it STILL tests only a **subset** of the standards.)
>Validates OK with W3C as "HTML 4.01 Strict".
Yes. They took pains to make sure that the test for compliance
was itself compliant.
>Get a "FAIL" with 53/100 score using SM 1.1.14.
>And looks really screwed up in IE 7.0.0730.11.
>Don't know whether IE 'FAIL's or what the score is.
As Phil said, IE looks so horrible
because of the (incorrect) guesses IE is making
--it's just that the Acid tests catch them when they are cheating.
from October 2004 "IE Shines On Broken Code"
support-seamonkey mailing list