Comments on: Opera first browser to reach 100% in Acid3 test

By: pollaki

pollaki — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:06:41 +0000

nice to be first!!

By: Andre

Andre — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:53:48 +0000

So who is updating Opera Watch now?

By: nilsson

nilsson — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:26:29 +0000

@Geoff: You are assuming that the test failed, or at least that part of the test failed, when Opera begun working on ACID3.

By: thub

thub — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:46:19 +0000

“if they were coding for standards compliance, not Acid3 compliance, they would have been the ones to submit the bug to Acid3″

Following Geoff’s logic we must conclude that if Webkit devs were honest folks and not cheaters they wouldn’t have hard-coded the fonts to be able to reach 100% ( http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1206756775&count=1 ) …

Apple zealots: constant amusement near your internet!.

By: dani

dani — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:37:27 +0000

great success for opera team
almost done..
I’m waiting..

By: Marcelo Victor

Marcelo Victor — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:20:41 +0000

It Works, that’s perfect!

Congratulations…

By: Oddity

Oddity — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:37:58 +0000

Safari was coding to the test, so I’m not sure what Geoff is saying. Apple even hard-coded a hack for a specific font in order to pass the pixel-perfect test.

By: Investor

Investor — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:52:02 +0000

@Geoff : ” It insinuates that Opera was not coding to the standards, but to the test. ”

… or both ?, but test first, to beat Safari

By: Geoff

Geoff — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:29:01 +0000

@Oddity

Actually, I was angered x3’s comment that the change in the test was “convenient” for Apple; the reality is that the test was broken because the test expected non-standards compliant behavior. I was suggesting that if Opera got their browser to work under the old test, they were not standards-compliant. Further, if they were coding for standards compliance, not Acid3 compliance, they would have been the ones to submit the bug to Acid3. Does my comment insinuate either anger that Opera beat WebKit or that there is a conspiracy? No. It insinuates that Opera was not coding to the standards, but to the test.

For full disclosure, I asked on the Safari Blog, under the post chronicling the bug fixes that went into passing test 79, whether Safari codes to the standards or to the test.

By: GT500

GT500 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:54:21 +0000

For those who want to try a public build of the Opera preview that passes Acid3…

I tried it, and it works. Two of the tests run too slow to be a perfect pass, but it does get 100/100 and it is pixel-perfect.

By: GT500

GT500 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:40:25 +0000

Nystor, please watch this video. I know it's about forums, but it applies to blogs as well.

By: Nico

Nico — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:29:48 +0000

That’s very cool news!

Can wait for the next weekly…

By: Yep

Yep — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:55:59 +0000

Nystor = w2

w2 conveniently forgets that IE doesn’t have to support “the real world wide web”. After all, “the real world wide web” is forced to bend over backwards to support IE.

But hey, who cares about facts, eh, w2?

By: Pallab

Pallab — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:21:55 +0000

Congrats to Opera. I hope they release the new build soon.

By: Nystor

Nystor — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:15:19 +0000

Ie8 starts in another competition, it is called ‘rendering the real world wide web’. It is much more important than publicity stunt. Anyone knowledeable enough to understand code behind acid3 knows that it is a test completly irrelevant to todays web.

passing acid3 does not make any browser better when it comes to dealing with real pages - like google, ms, yahoo or localised versions of youtube (that break badly in opera). And dont start about ’standards’. Real world has pages that are not standard. Web browser must render them well or it is useless.

IE8 indeed has a rare oportunity, and really big problem infron of itself - current beta is a great achievement for MS, but it still renders half of the web rather funny.