2 ms·

According to Wikipedia, SVG fonts were 3 out of a 100 tests. If you ignore those, Firefox 4 passed ACID3 about 2 years after Opera and WebKit, and that's only c

by unconed 15y ago

According to Wikipedia, SVG fonts were 3 out of a 100 tests. If you ignore those, Firefox 4 passed ACID3 about 2 years after Opera and WebKit, and that's only counting the actual released versions rather than nighties. But it's not even about the specific tests, it's about the crappy and holier than thou attitude that Mozilla demonstrated in those years, with very little to back it up. For example this post, which has been removed by the author but is still referenced elsewhere: http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/03/26/acid3-is-basically-worthless/ http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/03/26/acid3-is-basica... The gist of it was that ACID3 didn't test things that were relevant to 'real' web developers. Which is a dubious criticism at best, seeing as ACID3 was an excellent weathervane for sorting the wheat from the chaff. But it's hypocrisy in hindsight given that all the great features that web developers flocked to came from the other engines. And now Mozilla is complaining that there are -webkit prefixes everywhere. As for 3D CSS, it's not just about 'disagreements' or 'the spec'. The work Apple has done on iOS and desktop has made WebKit2 a seriously impressive engine. I made this site recently: http://acko.net/ http://acko.net/. It's butter smooth in Safari, choppy and ugly as hell in Firefox 10 (if I enable the 3D effect there). And yet Mozilla goes around proclaiming Firefox now supports CSS 3D and is on par with WebKit.

azakai 15y ago
> But it's hypocrisy in hindsight given that all the great features that web developers flocked to came from the other engines. And now Mozilla is complaining that there are -webkit prefixes everywhere. ? It isn't Mozilla saying this. It's every browser but WebKit. It's Microsoft, Mozilla and Opera, and non-browser people too. The mobile web is broken because it's full of WebKit-specific stuff that other browsers can't render. That's a fact. Mobile version of IE, Firefox and Opera can't render the mobile web properly because of that, even though they are standards-compliant browsers. > As for 3D CSS, it's not just about 'disagreements' or 'the spec'. The work Apple has done on iOS and desktop has made WebKit2 a seriously impressive engine. I made this site recently: http://acko.net/ http://acko.net/. It's butter smooth in Safari, choppy and ugly as hell in Firefox 10 (if I enable the 3D effect there). And yet Mozilla goes around proclaiming Firefox now supports CSS 3D and is on par with WebKit. Link? All I've seen is that Firefox was announced to support 3D CSS stuff, which it does. There might be bugs where it doesn't render as fast as it should, you might want to file one about your website (which is cool, btw). Side note: WebKit2 is a new embedding API for WebKit that is multiprocess-enabled, not a new version of WebKit. Chrome, for example, doesn't use WebKit2 - Chrome has its own multiprocess code. The 3D CSS stuff is in WebKit, and not related to the WebKit2 API (which, btw, has some performance problems currently that Safari is suffering from, but not Chrome).
- unconed 15y ago
  I don't have a link, it was a Mozilla evangelist at a live event who was showing off the 'new' 3D abilities. And I did file a bug. The first reply was: "this should be split up into multiple bugs" with no further information. Apparently, submitting a simple use case from the end-user's perspective is frowned upon and we should all know the internals of Firefox so we can file code-oriented bugs appropriately. Further commenters were more helpful, but I can't say I was one bit surprised. As for the mobile web... even my WebKit Android browser fails often, even on this very text field. There is no single 'webkit for mobile', and it's all the non-iPhone users that are treated as second class citizens, webkit prefixes or not. That's IMO a very different problem. As for WebKit2, you're right, that was badly worded. What I meant was "the Safari engine since they switched to WebKit2" (i.e. Lion). It came with a noticeable improvement in rendering performance, which Chrome has not been able to match on any system I've tried. Ultimately it all comes down to opinion and perception. But I have a hard time finding people who are still excited about Firefox who aren't Mozillians.
  - azakai 15y ago
    > As for the mobile web... even my WebKit Android browser fails often, even on this very text field. There is no single 'webkit for mobile', and it's all the non-iPhone users that are treated as second class citizens, webkit prefixes or not. That's IMO a very different problem. It's the same problem, and it's just as bad: If there is one dominant implementation, and other browsers can't render the actual web even when they implement the relevant standards - then the web is broken. If it's WebKit vs the rest or iOS vs the rest, it's just as bad. Regarding your frustration on the Mozilla bug tracker, I've definitely felt that both there and basically on every other major bug tracker. The other day I filed a bug on Node.js, and in 15 minutes there were three responses, saying things like "why is this a bug in node?", "don't file bugs on node like this", and soon after the bug was closed. A few days later, it was confirmed as valid... that's how it goes in big bug trackers ;) > Ultimately it all comes down to opinion and perception. But I have a hard time finding people who are still excited about Firefox who aren't Mozillians. I have very much the opposite impression, we probably just visit different websites and communities.

by unconed 15y ago

azakai 15y ago

> But it's hypocrisy in hindsight given that all the great features that web developers flocked to came from the other engines. And now Mozilla is complaining that there are -webkit prefixes everywhere. ? It isn't Mozilla saying this. It's every browser but WebKit. It's Microsoft, Mozilla and Opera, and non-browser people too. The mobile web is broken because it's full of WebKit-specific stuff that other browsers can't render. That's a fact. Mobile version of IE, Firefox and Opera can't render the mobile web properly because of that, even though they are standards-compliant browsers. > As for 3D CSS, it's not just about 'disagreements' or 'the spec'. The work Apple has done on iOS and desktop has made WebKit2 a seriously impressive engine. I made this site recently: http://acko.net/ http://acko.net/. It's butter smooth in Safari, choppy and ugly as hell in Firefox 10 (if I enable the 3D effect there). And yet Mozilla goes around proclaiming Firefox now supports CSS 3D and is on par with WebKit. Link? All I've seen is that Firefox was announced to support 3D CSS stuff, which it does. There might be bugs where it doesn't render as fast as it should, you might want to file one about your website (which is cool, btw). Side note: WebKit2 is a new embedding API for WebKit that is multiprocess-enabled, not a new version of WebKit. Chrome, for example, doesn't use WebKit2 - Chrome has its own multiprocess code. The 3D CSS stuff is in WebKit, and not related to the WebKit2 API (which, btw, has some performance problems currently that Safari is suffering from, but not Chrome).

unconed 15y ago
I don't have a link, it was a Mozilla evangelist at a live event who was showing off the 'new' 3D abilities. And I did file a bug. The first reply was: "this should be split up into multiple bugs" with no further information. Apparently, submitting a simple use case from the end-user's perspective is frowned upon and we should all know the internals of Firefox so we can file code-oriented bugs appropriately. Further commenters were more helpful, but I can't say I was one bit surprised. As for the mobile web... even my WebKit Android browser fails often, even on this very text field. There is no single 'webkit for mobile', and it's all the non-iPhone users that are treated as second class citizens, webkit prefixes or not. That's IMO a very different problem. As for WebKit2, you're right, that was badly worded. What I meant was "the Safari engine since they switched to WebKit2" (i.e. Lion). It came with a noticeable improvement in rendering performance, which Chrome has not been able to match on any system I've tried. Ultimately it all comes down to opinion and perception. But I have a hard time finding people who are still excited about Firefox who aren't Mozillians.
- azakai 15y ago
  > As for the mobile web... even my WebKit Android browser fails often, even on this very text field. There is no single 'webkit for mobile', and it's all the non-iPhone users that are treated as second class citizens, webkit prefixes or not. That's IMO a very different problem. It's the same problem, and it's just as bad: If there is one dominant implementation, and other browsers can't render the actual web even when they implement the relevant standards - then the web is broken. If it's WebKit vs the rest or iOS vs the rest, it's just as bad. Regarding your frustration on the Mozilla bug tracker, I've definitely felt that both there and basically on every other major bug tracker. The other day I filed a bug on Node.js, and in 15 minutes there were three responses, saying things like "why is this a bug in node?", "don't file bugs on node like this", and soon after the bug was closed. A few days later, it was confirmed as valid... that's how it goes in big bug trackers ;) > Ultimately it all comes down to opinion and perception. But I have a hard time finding people who are still excited about Firefox who aren't Mozillians. I have very much the opposite impression, we probably just visit different websites and communities.