ShadowDiver

Topic: Acid2 test results

I am in the process of testing Tripoli for use with web development.  I copied your example pages, and compared them with four browsers: Firefox2.0, Opera9.27, Safari3.1.1, and IE7.0 by opening them all at once, and looking at them side by side.  The tests were the HTML Sample, Selectors, and Layout.  I also included one more test file: Acid2. 

I looked at the test files before Tripoli on all four browsers, and after installing tripoli in the test file, especially looking for browser differences, and what happen after Tripoli.

My first impression was that Tripoli did indeed make all the browsers more uniform.  And the test did open my eyes to the differences in the various browsers. 

Then we come to Acid2, a test built for CSS conformance by the Web Standards Project.  First off, Safari and Opera passed, Firefox almost passed, and IE failed miserably.  However, after Tripoli was injected in the test files.  All four browsers failed.  I was hoping all four browsers passed.

So my query.  Is the Acid tests a good test for Tripoli?  My hope would be that the inclusion of Tripoli would cause all four browsers to pass, or at least all fail the same.  That may be a tall order.

In fairness.  Since the Acid test uses header css tags, I applied Tripoli at the top of the head section.  So the Acid test overrode the tripoli css, but this is I believe how Tripoli was meant to be applied.  I will have to go back and test what would happen if I included Tripoli at the bottom of the header when I have a few more cycles.

maniqui

Re: Acid2 test results

What a coincidence! I've been reading about Acid tests today, so I have a fresh note regarding your report:

Quote from the WSG Acid2 Guide

Note: When taking the test, you should use the default settings of the browser you are testing. Changing the zoom level, minimum font size, applying a fit-to-width algorithm, or making other changes may alter the rendition of the Acid2 page without this constituting a failure in compliance. (Added 21 July 2006)

ShadowDiver

Re: Acid2 test results

Ok, I pulled up the source for Acid2, and took a look. This is definitely not what I consider a fair test for Tripoli.  They mix em's and px's. They use a lot of class selectors and jump back and forth.  Acid2 uses objects, and expects the browser to remember inherited settings as it bounces between classes, it switches font em and px sizes frequently, and expects the browser to follow it.  If a browser passes the Acid2 test, and Opera and Safari do that, then it is probably a very robust browser. 

    I wanted to see the changes that Tripoli made to the browser's orginal presentation that corrected the problems between the browsers.  In other words, I wanted Tripoli to prove itself.   I don't think that's too much to ask.

    The "Sample HTML" files approach was to put every html call into the source.  Consequently, you really had to work to see the differences in the browsers, by gradually, line-by-line, going through the original file looking for a difference and then looking at the same spot after Tripoli.  A pain at best.  I would like to propose a "Test HTML" file of errors, that only contains content that has given any one  browser a problem.  We can then see what Tripoli really does, and what to expect from using Tripoli.

Last edited by ShadowDiver (2008-06-05 22:16:03)

ShadowDiver

Re: Acid2 test results

To continue: I went back into the "HTML Sample" file, and combed through it with the above four browsers, and annotated every discrepancy I found in any one browser.  There were not that many errors in the four browsers, since my browsers were all current, but there were some.  Specifically, the abbr, acronym, kbd, quotes or q, samp, and the markers for the unordered lists.  That's not a lot of errors, so browsers are getting better.

I then incoporated Tripoli into the "HTML Sample" file, and took a look at how each browsers rendered the file.  I have to say, "I'm impressed with Tripoli."

Tripoli corrected every problem by making all the browsers look the same, with one exception.  Quotes, or the <q> tag with IE7.  Before Tripoli, IE shows no quotes, Firefox got it right, and Opera and Safari showed both as double quotes. After Tripoli, every browser showed quotes within quotes correctly, except IE which still did not show quotes.

The other benefit I saw was the fonts looked better, cleaner and crisper.  Fonts were uniform across the browsers.  All this proved to me that Tripoli is a worthwhile include for my sites.

insub2

Re: Acid2 test results

ShadowDiver wrote:

... If a browser passes the Acid2 test, and Opera and Safari do that, then it is probably a very robust browser. 

    I wanted to see the changes that Tripoli made to the browser's orginal presentation that corrected the problems between the browsers.  In other words, I wanted Tripoli to prove itself.   I don't think that's too much to ask.

...

Actually, if a browser passes the Acid2 test, then it means that the browser interprets and presents the CSS according to the standards set by the W3C.  That is why they use so much code--to test everything.

With that in mind, it is kind of silly to see if Tripoli can make IE or FF present the Acid2 test correctly, as (1) that is not what Tripoli is for and (2) that is really impossible.  ...because the reason browsers fail the Acid2 test is because, as a program, they don't interpret the (valid) CSS correctly.

I may be telling you things you already know, because you seem to have figured out the only way to test Tripoli is to compare how a page renders in different browsers.