5 ms·

HTML5 Web Standards Tests for IE9

48 points by nikz 16y ago

apike 16y ago
Although the tests only cover a tiny subset of HTML5 cases that IE9 supports, I like the approach. If each browser had a test suite that they passed 100% and could run against the other browsers, it would be an interesting way to move towards compatibility.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Better yet, make automated test cases part of the standard.
  - JeffJenkins 16y ago
    The pages used for this actually are test pages they developed with the W3C, which is almost making them part of the spec.
melling 16y ago
On most compatibility tests, IE9 always seems to come up way short. It looks really good on their tests. Where does IE9 really stand? What are the chances of getting <canvas> support? IE9 could be the key to taking the web to the next level.
sh1mmer 16y ago
I'm deeply suspicious of any page provided by any vendor in which all of their tests pass and everyone else is missing some. I think it's really great IE9 is doing HTML5/SVG/CSS3/etc full steam, but I'd much prefer to see where they are failing too.
- NathanKP 16y ago
  http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com is much more trustworthy and has broader coverage.
  - awa 16y ago
    Hmm.. I find it interesting that they have kept IE6, FF 3, Chrome 3, Opera 9.6 and Safari 3 in far-past category. Doesn't IE6 is Far-far past then?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
bcardarella 16y ago
No mention of canvas. Doesn't the IE team realize that developers are reading these blog posts?
wwortiz 16y ago
I'm so very confused by the chosen subset of html5 and css3, it looks like they implemented a few things and ran like 20 tests on those few things that other browsers have yet to adopt while the actual things that other browsers are accepting aren't even shown. I really hope they IE team continues to work on putting html5 and css3 in their browser and if it turns out to be the most standards compliant browser kudos to them but this was disappointing.
xs 16y ago
Although I love the effort put forth by MS for even thinking about HTML5 but the webpage is silly. Firstly, why are they even testing other browsers. Should I thank MS for testing out everyone else? Secondly, as mentioned already, someone should send them a memo on <canvas>. Lastly, the first thing I saw was that border radius with dotted style is not supported in chrome so I tested it and it works flawlessly. This was the first and only test I conducted from their data and it was enough for me to dismiss this article.
adamdecaf 16y ago
"Google Chrome 4.1", sure let's test the development version of IE, but not the dev version of chromium (chrome). No mention of workers, canvas, audio, video, <device>, web databases, or advances in javascript speed improvements. Just talk about separate specs, CSS3 and SVG. Anther waste of time, presented by Microsoft...
minalecs 16y ago
ill believe it when I see it.
xavoy 16y ago
Don't worry. It will default to 'compatibility mode' and there won't be any way to force the browser to use the new engine. It will still be full of security wholes, take forever to parse simple javascript and no doubt offer an overall inferior browsing experience. I don't think Mozilla/Apple/Google have anything to worry about. As a web developer, I'm quite happy with the way Firefox's rendering capabilities are progressing, despite what these phony tests might suggest. And seriously, how can they compete with Firefox's 'AwesomeBar'? I seriously couldn't live without it. I just hope these make believe test pages don't fool the end users :(
- trezor 16y ago
  I just hope these make believe test pages don't fool the end users :( While these tests are certainly biased, they do show that MSIE is at least progressing now (as opposed to standing completely still for years and years) with regards to standards compliance and HTML5. And really... Would you want end users on MSIE6/7/8 or MSIE 9? For the group of users with no technical interest, sadly that is usually the choice you have.
  - xavoy 16y ago
    The problem is that it isn't a choice of MSIE6/7/8 or MSIE9, it is MSIE6/7/8 AND 9. Maybe I've just been burnt one too many times, but they really should just give up. Sure, it might pass a few tests here and there, but MSIE9 will just be ANOTHER buggy web browser whose idiosyncrasies web designers will have to consider when they build someone a web site. Anyone can make software to pass standardized test, but take my word for it, MSIE9 is just another MS browser full of wildly inconsistent renderings of simple HTML, a half baked Javascript implementation and fruity vendor specific extensions that developers will have to cater for. MSIE6/7 and 8 aren't going anywhere soon.
    - trezor 16y ago
      The problem is that it isn't a choice of MSIE6/7/8 or MSIE9, it is MSIE6/7/8 AND 9. While it hasn't always been that way, at least lately (since MSIE7 and 8) Microsoft has been working hard to get rid of the older versions as well and the newer versions (while certainly not perfect) most definitly improves on the shitty standards support found in MSIE 6. In MS's latest technet newsletter there is even a link to a paper on virtualizing older versions of MSIE so you can upgrade to something modern while retaining compatibility with older legacy apps requiring MSIE 6. [1] So while MS can be blamed for producing MSIE 6, the blame for that MSIE is still around lies entirely in corporate IT and them not using the options they most definitely have for getting rid of it for mainstream use. [1] http://www.dabcc.com/documentlibrary/file/Solutions_for_Virtualizing_Internet_Explorer.pdf http://www.dabcc.com/documentlibrary/file/Solutions_for_Virt...
pohl 16y ago
"The table at the bottom of this page provides details and links to each of the new test cases we submitted to each appropriate W3C working group" Translation: cherry-picked for maximum green in their own column.
pavs 16y ago
MSFT has a history of spouting out bs claims about its own browser superiority over others. They have recently going after Google Chrome at full stream[1]. They obviously feels threatened by the new comer. As for me, I can't wait for them to die. [1] http://geektechnica.com/2010/04/microsoft-continues-its-tradition-of-misinformation-with-ie8/ http://geektechnica.com/2010/04/microsoft-continues-its-trad...
- est 16y ago
  > MSFT has a history of spouting out bs claims about its own browser superiority over others who doesn't?
  - Niten 16y ago
    Yeah, but at least most other browser vendors merely distort the truth; here Microsoft purports to do an HTML5 feature comparison, and they don't even get around to mentioning <canvas>! That's flat-out lying about what it means to be an HTML5 Web browser. Sigh... part of me really hoped that IE 9 would finally give Windows a standards-compliant built in Web client. But perhaps something about the culture surrounding the IE team is so fundamentally broken that we'll never see such a thing short of a major Microsoft reorganization.
    - est 16y ago
      > Yeah, but at least most other browser vendors merely distort the truth promotion, marketing, ads, they are not meant to tell the truth. If you want truth, use your own judgement.
cmelbye 16y ago
Only Microsoft would be able to come up with test results that show Internet Explorer as the perfectly standards compliant browser while all the others aren't.
DrJokepu 16y ago
This is a very carefully selected set of test cases that only cover a small subset of HTML5. For example, most of their CSS test cases focus on border-radius (mostly obscure corner cases), but what about shadows, gradients, independent transparency, etc? I appreciate Microsoft's efforts to support HTML5 in their next release of IE but this page is simply ridiculous. It seems like they picked a few features of HTML5 and decided to support only those but support them well down to the most obscure corner cases, as opposed to the "let's do everything now and then we will fix it later if it's not working properly" approach of open source browsers. The main problem is that IE release cycle is considerably slower than other browsers'. If they only implement a few features, we have to wait several years to other features, if they implemented all features, we would have to wait several years for Microsoft to fix the bugs. The web these days is just too fast paced for that. It would be a lot better if they switched to a more frequent release cycle.
- melling 16y ago
  So the countermove is for other browser vendors to go through the list and fix these "small" cases. This takes away any of IE9's bragging rights and we'll have 5 browsers that pass on this exact subset of tests. Microsoft is forced to be more compatible and html5 arrives on the scene sooner. IE9 takes us to 2014 or 2015. Let's push Microsoft to do even better.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - silvestrov 16y ago
    The move would be for Microsoft to produce the table using the latest developer versions of the other browsers. The nightly WebKit (developer version of Safari) has already fixed a great number of the bugs, so that column would look much greener. Oh, and Microsoft, I think you forgot a tab for <canvas>.
  - alexyim 16y ago
    It won't matter. For them to have constructed such a biased test shows how much in denial they are. It's pretty depressing actually.
metaprinter 16y ago
Will IE9 be used for rendering HTML emails in Outlook 20xx? My biggest concern is that Outlook 2010 beta uses the MS Word rendering engine to display emails!!!! ack!
stewars 16y ago
Their test for "Set selectionStart and selectionEnd on a text field" tests that selection start and end can be set which should pass in Safari but their test fails because they are asserting that window.getSelection().anchorNode == null after they've set the selection start and end points. This doesn't make sense to me and I don't get that from my reading of the spec. Am I missing something?
ck2 16y ago
They missed the most important categories: Works on millions of existing Windows XP installs: FAIL Internet Explorer 9 PASS Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 PASS Opera 10.52 PASS Apple Safari 4.05 PASS Google Chrome 4.1 Supports CANVAS: FAIL Internet Explorer 9 PASS Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 PASS Opera 10.52 PASS Apple Safari 4.05 PASS Google Chrome 4.1
- trezor 16y ago
  While lack of canvas support is definitely a noteworthy omission, I say people running an OS almost a decade old can't really complain when the newest software doesn't work. MSIE 9 uses hardware acceleration for faster rendering which involves APIs and interfaces which are not found in Windows XP. If you want the world to move forward, you will occationally have to leave someone behind. That time has long come for Windows XP.
  - ck2 16y ago
    Since DirectX 10 has been demonstrated as portable to XP, the lack of acceleration is not a technical or administrative problem - it's a financial decision by Microsoft to force people to upgrade. But this will backfire on them because it's MUCH easier and cheaper to use another browser than to upgrade your OS.
    - trezor 16y ago
      By the very same logic there is no reason (apart from investing time & money) that Firefox shouldn't be able to run on 16-bit systems. But you don't see anyone complaining about that. You have to draw the line somewhere. XP is old. There are a lot of decent OSes and upgrade-options out there. I see no problem ignoring XP for any new, major development projects, especially if new APIs will need to be developed in the process.
      - ck2 16y ago
        There are millions, possibly a billion XP installs out there (I'm one of them). They can run all the newest software still, it's 99% the same API as Vista and W7. Plus XP is still faster than Vista or W7, uses less memory and FAR less disk space to do the same functionality. Don't confuse the need to sell more software with the previous version not actually being outdated. There's a huge difference between Windows 3.1 being extinct and XP.
roschdal 16y ago
I strongly disagree with this HTML5 standards test from Microsoft. They have included only a small subset of the HTML5 standard, and have excluded important parts, in particular the HTML5 canvas element. As a result, Internet Explorer 9 will lead to an even more fragmented web where browsers interpret standards differently. This is why we started the Internet Explorer 9 HTML5 canvas campaign: http://freeciv.net/internet-explorer-html5-canvas-campaign.jsp http://freeciv.net/internet-explorer-html5-canvas-campaign.j...
rythie 16y ago
In comparison on the Acid3 test... IE9 Platform Preview 68/100 Firefox 3.6.3 94/100 Opera 10 100/100 Safari 4 100/100 Chrome 4 100/100 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3
fizzfur 16y ago
Fine, it's bias.... but I like the attitude and love the fact that a primary competing factor between vendors is how compatible with the HTML5 umbrella they are! It's win all round.

48 points by nikz 16y ago

apike 16y ago

Although the tests only cover a tiny subset of HTML5 cases that IE9 supports, I like the approach. If each browser had a test suite that they passed 100% and could run against the other browsers, it would be an interesting way to move towards compatibility.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Better yet, make automated test cases part of the standard.
- JeffJenkins 16y ago
  The pages used for this actually are test pages they developed with the W3C, which is almost making them part of the spec.

melling 16y ago

On most compatibility tests, IE9 always seems to come up way short. It looks really good on their tests. Where does IE9 really stand? What are the chances of getting <canvas> support? IE9 could be the key to taking the web to the next level.

sh1mmer 16y ago

I'm deeply suspicious of any page provided by any vendor in which all of their tests pass and everyone else is missing some. I think it's really great IE9 is doing HTML5/SVG/CSS3/etc full steam, but I'd much prefer to see where they are failing too.

NathanKP 16y ago
http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com is much more trustworthy and has broader coverage.
- awa 16y ago
  Hmm.. I find it interesting that they have kept IE6, FF 3, Chrome 3, Opera 9.6 and Safari 3 in far-past category. Doesn't IE6 is Far-far past then?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

bcardarella 16y ago

No mention of canvas. Doesn't the IE team realize that developers are reading these blog posts?

wwortiz 16y ago

I'm so very confused by the chosen subset of html5 and css3, it looks like they implemented a few things and ran like 20 tests on those few things that other browsers have yet to adopt while the actual things that other browsers are accepting aren't even shown. I really hope they IE team continues to work on putting html5 and css3 in their browser and if it turns out to be the most standards compliant browser kudos to them but this was disappointing.

xs 16y ago

Although I love the effort put forth by MS for even thinking about HTML5 but the webpage is silly. Firstly, why are they even testing other browsers. Should I thank MS for testing out everyone else? Secondly, as mentioned already, someone should send them a memo on <canvas>. Lastly, the first thing I saw was that border radius with dotted style is not supported in chrome so I tested it and it works flawlessly. This was the first and only test I conducted from their data and it was enough for me to dismiss this article.

adamdecaf 16y ago

"Google Chrome 4.1", sure let's test the development version of IE, but not the dev version of chromium (chrome). No mention of workers, canvas, audio, video, <device>, web databases, or advances in javascript speed improvements. Just talk about separate specs, CSS3 and SVG. Anther waste of time, presented by Microsoft...

minalecs 16y ago

ill believe it when I see it.

xavoy 16y ago

Don't worry. It will default to 'compatibility mode' and there won't be any way to force the browser to use the new engine. It will still be full of security wholes, take forever to parse simple javascript and no doubt offer an overall inferior browsing experience. I don't think Mozilla/Apple/Google have anything to worry about. As a web developer, I'm quite happy with the way Firefox's rendering capabilities are progressing, despite what these phony tests might suggest. And seriously, how can they compete with Firefox's 'AwesomeBar'? I seriously couldn't live without it. I just hope these make believe test pages don't fool the end users :(

trezor 16y ago
I just hope these make believe test pages don't fool the end users :( While these tests are certainly biased, they do show that MSIE is at least progressing now (as opposed to standing completely still for years and years) with regards to standards compliance and HTML5. And really... Would you want end users on MSIE6/7/8 or MSIE 9? For the group of users with no technical interest, sadly that is usually the choice you have.
- xavoy 16y ago
  The problem is that it isn't a choice of MSIE6/7/8 or MSIE9, it is MSIE6/7/8 AND 9. Maybe I've just been burnt one too many times, but they really should just give up. Sure, it might pass a few tests here and there, but MSIE9 will just be ANOTHER buggy web browser whose idiosyncrasies web designers will have to consider when they build someone a web site. Anyone can make software to pass standardized test, but take my word for it, MSIE9 is just another MS browser full of wildly inconsistent renderings of simple HTML, a half baked Javascript implementation and fruity vendor specific extensions that developers will have to cater for. MSIE6/7 and 8 aren't going anywhere soon.
  - trezor 16y ago
    The problem is that it isn't a choice of MSIE6/7/8 or MSIE9, it is MSIE6/7/8 AND 9. While it hasn't always been that way, at least lately (since MSIE7 and 8) Microsoft has been working hard to get rid of the older versions as well and the newer versions (while certainly not perfect) most definitly improves on the shitty standards support found in MSIE 6. In MS's latest technet newsletter there is even a link to a paper on virtualizing older versions of MSIE so you can upgrade to something modern while retaining compatibility with older legacy apps requiring MSIE 6. [1] So while MS can be blamed for producing MSIE 6, the blame for that MSIE is still around lies entirely in corporate IT and them not using the options they most definitely have for getting rid of it for mainstream use. [1] http://www.dabcc.com/documentlibrary/file/Solutions_for_Virtualizing_Internet_Explorer.pdf http://www.dabcc.com/documentlibrary/file/Solutions_for_Virt...

pohl 16y ago

"The table at the bottom of this page provides details and links to each of the new test cases we submitted to each appropriate W3C working group" Translation: cherry-picked for maximum green in their own column.

pavs 16y ago

MSFT has a history of spouting out bs claims about its own browser superiority over others. They have recently going after Google Chrome at full stream[1]. They obviously feels threatened by the new comer. As for me, I can't wait for them to die. [1] http://geektechnica.com/2010/04/microsoft-continues-its-tradition-of-misinformation-with-ie8/ http://geektechnica.com/2010/04/microsoft-continues-its-trad...

est 16y ago
> MSFT has a history of spouting out bs claims about its own browser superiority over others who doesn't?
- Niten 16y ago
  Yeah, but at least most other browser vendors merely distort the truth; here Microsoft purports to do an HTML5 feature comparison, and they don't even get around to mentioning <canvas>! That's flat-out lying about what it means to be an HTML5 Web browser. Sigh... part of me really hoped that IE 9 would finally give Windows a standards-compliant built in Web client. But perhaps something about the culture surrounding the IE team is so fundamentally broken that we'll never see such a thing short of a major Microsoft reorganization.
  - est 16y ago
    > Yeah, but at least most other browser vendors merely distort the truth promotion, marketing, ads, they are not meant to tell the truth. If you want truth, use your own judgement.

cmelbye 16y ago

Only Microsoft would be able to come up with test results that show Internet Explorer as the perfectly standards compliant browser while all the others aren't.

DrJokepu 16y ago

This is a very carefully selected set of test cases that only cover a small subset of HTML5. For example, most of their CSS test cases focus on border-radius (mostly obscure corner cases), but what about shadows, gradients, independent transparency, etc? I appreciate Microsoft's efforts to support HTML5 in their next release of IE but this page is simply ridiculous. It seems like they picked a few features of HTML5 and decided to support only those but support them well down to the most obscure corner cases, as opposed to the "let's do everything now and then we will fix it later if it's not working properly" approach of open source browsers. The main problem is that IE release cycle is considerably slower than other browsers'. If they only implement a few features, we have to wait several years to other features, if they implemented all features, we would have to wait several years for Microsoft to fix the bugs. The web these days is just too fast paced for that. It would be a lot better if they switched to a more frequent release cycle.

melling 16y ago
So the countermove is for other browser vendors to go through the list and fix these "small" cases. This takes away any of IE9's bragging rights and we'll have 5 browsers that pass on this exact subset of tests. Microsoft is forced to be more compatible and html5 arrives on the scene sooner. IE9 takes us to 2014 or 2015. Let's push Microsoft to do even better.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- silvestrov 16y ago
  The move would be for Microsoft to produce the table using the latest developer versions of the other browsers. The nightly WebKit (developer version of Safari) has already fixed a great number of the bugs, so that column would look much greener. Oh, and Microsoft, I think you forgot a tab for <canvas>.
- alexyim 16y ago
  It won't matter. For them to have constructed such a biased test shows how much in denial they are. It's pretty depressing actually.

metaprinter 16y ago

Will IE9 be used for rendering HTML emails in Outlook 20xx? My biggest concern is that Outlook 2010 beta uses the MS Word rendering engine to display emails!!!! ack!

stewars 16y ago

Their test for "Set selectionStart and selectionEnd on a text field" tests that selection start and end can be set which should pass in Safari but their test fails because they are asserting that window.getSelection().anchorNode == null after they've set the selection start and end points. This doesn't make sense to me and I don't get that from my reading of the spec. Am I missing something?

ck2 16y ago

They missed the most important categories: Works on millions of existing Windows XP installs: FAIL Internet Explorer 9 PASS Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 PASS Opera 10.52 PASS Apple Safari 4.05 PASS Google Chrome 4.1 Supports CANVAS: FAIL Internet Explorer 9 PASS Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 PASS Opera 10.52 PASS Apple Safari 4.05 PASS Google Chrome 4.1

trezor 16y ago
While lack of canvas support is definitely a noteworthy omission, I say people running an OS almost a decade old can't really complain when the newest software doesn't work. MSIE 9 uses hardware acceleration for faster rendering which involves APIs and interfaces which are not found in Windows XP. If you want the world to move forward, you will occationally have to leave someone behind. That time has long come for Windows XP.
- ck2 16y ago
  Since DirectX 10 has been demonstrated as portable to XP, the lack of acceleration is not a technical or administrative problem - it's a financial decision by Microsoft to force people to upgrade. But this will backfire on them because it's MUCH easier and cheaper to use another browser than to upgrade your OS.
  - trezor 16y ago
    By the very same logic there is no reason (apart from investing time & money) that Firefox shouldn't be able to run on 16-bit systems. But you don't see anyone complaining about that. You have to draw the line somewhere. XP is old. There are a lot of decent OSes and upgrade-options out there. I see no problem ignoring XP for any new, major development projects, especially if new APIs will need to be developed in the process.
    - ck2 16y ago
      There are millions, possibly a billion XP installs out there (I'm one of them). They can run all the newest software still, it's 99% the same API as Vista and W7. Plus XP is still faster than Vista or W7, uses less memory and FAR less disk space to do the same functionality. Don't confuse the need to sell more software with the previous version not actually being outdated. There's a huge difference between Windows 3.1 being extinct and XP.

roschdal 16y ago

I strongly disagree with this HTML5 standards test from Microsoft. They have included only a small subset of the HTML5 standard, and have excluded important parts, in particular the HTML5 canvas element. As a result, Internet Explorer 9 will lead to an even more fragmented web where browsers interpret standards differently. This is why we started the Internet Explorer 9 HTML5 canvas campaign: http://freeciv.net/internet-explorer-html5-canvas-campaign.jsp http://freeciv.net/internet-explorer-html5-canvas-campaign.j...

rythie 16y ago

In comparison on the Acid3 test... IE9 Platform Preview 68/100 Firefox 3.6.3 94/100 Opera 10 100/100 Safari 4 100/100 Chrome 4 100/100 source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

fizzfur 16y ago

Fine, it's bias.... but I like the attitude and love the fact that a primary competing factor between vendors is how compatible with the HTML5 umbrella they are! It's win all round.