>>Jens Hatlak wrote: >>>[...]http://acid3.acidtests.org [...] >>> >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 1.0.154.48, 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. >> Nope. 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.) BeeNeR wrote: >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. > Ed > 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" http://google.com/search?q=cache:7-myeaT_Ew4J:it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/0236213+IE.Shines.On.Broken.Code+rss+IE.was.dynamically.rewriting.my.JavaScript.replacing.the.incorrect.delimiters.with.the.correct.ones#10563498 _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
