3 ms·

For those interested in how the alternative browsers are doing, I just put up an alternative to https://wpt.fyi https://wpt.fyi (displays the WPT test results o

For those interested in how the alternative browsers are doing, I just put up an alternative to https://wpt.fyi https://wpt.fyi (displays the WPT test results of each browser) which is IMO easier to navigate, and shows Servo / Ladybird by default: https://blitz.is/wpt https://blitz.is/wpt The headline results are: - Chrome 94.7% (1053647/1112582) - Firefox 90.6% (1008073/1112582) - Safari TP 88.7% ( 987377/1112582) - Ladybird 84.2% ( 937019/1112582) - Servo 74.4% ( 827216/1112582) So Ladybird is catching up with the other pretty fast! Although it's worth noting that it still has a bunch of extra work to do with regard to performance. (my engine Blitz whose website this is on scores 42.2% for specifically the `css` subset, compared to 50.3% for Servo and 72.3% Ladybird) (the results above exclude the `encoding` suite, because that's 1 million test ~50% of the whole suite, that doesn't really measure rendering capability).

culi 1mo ago
I love WPT (I even have a bookmark comparing all of these browsers as well as Flow[0] that I check regularly). But this is absolutely NOT how this site is meant to be used. For example, Ladybird jumped from about 30% to over 70% when it added a bunch of unicode logic. Secondly, these tests aren't all even officially agreed upon standards. Some are specific to Chrome features that are still in the draft stages for W3C. Many tests are written by the developers of the engines themselves. Chrome, having a larger team, will naturally contribute many more tests relevant to whatever feature they're prioritizing [0] https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&product=chrome&product=firefox&product=safari&product=ladybird&product=servo&product=flow&aligned https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&product=chrome&product...
- nicoburns 1mo ago
  > But this is absolutely NOT how this site is meant to be used. For example, Ladybird jumped from about 30% to over 70% when it added a bunch of unicode logic. That's true, but you can dive into specific categories to get a more accurate picture and also see which sets of tests are only implemented by Chrome.
exsol 1mo ago
nice to see someone else fighting with the same suite. i run css part of WPT on pdf engine (paged output, no js) and hit most of the same problems. https://reflowpdf.com/conformance https://reflowpdf.com/conformance
- nicoburns 1mo ago
  FYI I was able to vibe code "enough JavaScript to run the css part of WPT" in about a week. Might not work so well if you don't have a DOM or incremental rendering though, but could be worth looking into.
  - exsol 1mo ago
    thanks, i was already looking at this. Most of my skipped tests are reftests with script tag inside, and big part of that script just builds the dom. Thats doable without a real js runtime.

culi 1mo ago

I love WPT (I even have a bookmark comparing all of these browsers as well as Flow[0] that I check regularly). But this is absolutely NOT how this site is meant to be used. For example, Ladybird jumped from about 30% to over 70% when it added a bunch of unicode logic. Secondly, these tests aren't all even officially agreed upon standards. Some are specific to Chrome features that are still in the draft stages for W3C. Many tests are written by the developers of the engines themselves. Chrome, having a larger team, will naturally contribute many more tests relevant to whatever feature they're prioritizing [0] https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&product=chrome&product=firefox&product=safari&product=ladybird&product=servo&product=flow&aligned https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&product=chrome&product...

nicoburns 1mo ago
> But this is absolutely NOT how this site is meant to be used. For example, Ladybird jumped from about 30% to over 70% when it added a bunch of unicode logic. That's true, but you can dive into specific categories to get a more accurate picture and also see which sets of tests are only implemented by Chrome.

exsol 1mo ago

nice to see someone else fighting with the same suite. i run css part of WPT on pdf engine (paged output, no js) and hit most of the same problems. https://reflowpdf.com/conformance https://reflowpdf.com/conformance

nicoburns 1mo ago
FYI I was able to vibe code "enough JavaScript to run the css part of WPT" in about a week. Might not work so well if you don't have a DOM or incremental rendering though, but could be worth looking into.
- exsol 1mo ago
  thanks, i was already looking at this. Most of my skipped tests are reftests with script tag inside, and big part of that script just builds the dom. Thats doable without a real js runtime.