Talk:Acid3/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Archive

Old discussions for this page has been archived.

Chromium fails the acid3-test

As of July 3 2009, Chromium now passes Acid3 100%. Any build of version 3.0.192.0 (build 19910) and above now passes. You must load chrome with the ' --enable-remote-fonts flag in order to get a pixel-perfect rendering (remote fonts are disabled by default in Chrome due to security reasons according to http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=231#c85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.54.154 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chromium says 100/100 but the result I get is not the same as the reference:
- Chromium shows incorrectly "LINKTEST FAILED".
- The grey shadow of "Acid3" is missing.
213.10.195.214 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure you are using the same build of Chromium referenced in the article. Luinfana (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My results for that build are the same as for the latest build. There really seems to be a problem with the linktest. Chromium also fails another test: http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html It probably has something to do with: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22131 213.10.195.214 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As of build 7750 chrome STILL doesn't pass all parts of the acid 3 test (they fixed font but linktest failed is still there) so this should definitely be fixed. Zamadatix (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I get 99/100 with Chromium 2.0.180.0 when I go to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ from the start page showing most visited pages. But then I get 100/100 when I hit reload. Termopetteri (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Instructions for taking the test are to visit the page and press reload. The first result (before reload) is expected to be often incorrect. ɹəəpıɔnı 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just ran it with 4.0.249.4 on Ubuntu 9.10, and the rendering is pixel-perfect, but not entirely smooth. -- 86.69.114.171 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just ran it with 4.1.249.1036 on Windows XP SP3. The first time I load it in a tab, it looks fine (didn't check pixel perfect though). If I hit refresh, it fails miserably. Also fails on my brother's computer. Anyone else seeing this?

Safari 4 does not pass Acid3

In the same way that Opera 10.0 fails the performance test, Safari 4 does too. Even worse, it takes over double the time on the same harware (Core2 Duo E6600). Linky. So by the same token the iSheep are up in arms that Opera should be removed, so should Safari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot say that Safari does not pass in the article based on original research. You need to find a reliable source to cite. Also, please remember to assume good faith. Thank you. -- Schapel (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not a browser passes Acid 3 depends on whether somebody makes an official statement? Sounds a bit weird to me. BTW, I also never could find out how Safari 4 "passes" Acid3 better than Opera 10 does. But then, this discussion looks so ridiculous to me that I don't really want to get involved. --DeTru711 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not we can say it in Wikipedia depends on whether somebody makes an official statement, because Wikipedia requires a citation from a reliable source and does not allow original research. -- Schapel (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So if somebody makes an official statement that Safari 4 passes Acid 3 qualifies it to put it on Wikipedia, even if that statement is "wrong" (since Safari 4 doesn't really seem to pass the performance aspect of Acid 3 in the same way that it's demanded for Opera)? To me it looks just like a battle between fans of either browser, with Safari fans wanting their browser to be the only passing one (BTW, I'm not a fan of either; only the reasoning behind the decision looks ridiculous to me because obvious facts that everybody can test for himself should count more than official statements by somebody). Bah, I didn't want to engage in this discussion, now I'm afraid I did :(. But be relaxed, I'm not going to change anything on the page regarding this question - I leave that up to you guys to battle that out. --DeTru711 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources are supposed to be third party, the citation stating that safari passes is currently from the apple website. They could easily have ignored the performance aspect, the never specifically state what the performance is. Maybe we should ignore the performance aspect in judging whether it passes due to the difficulty in testing. Acid3 is really meant to test standards compliance, not speed, anyway.-AlexTG (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This sounds very reasonable to me. All the test says is "the animation has to be smooth". If that applies to one of them, it certainly applies to the other as well (or conversely, to neither). --DeTru711 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way to handle this is to change the section header to something like "Browsers which score 100%", and then list all the browsers that do. Next to Safari, we can add an extra note that Safari is known to also pass the performance measure as well. I think this seems much more reasonable, especially given the discrepancy in the evidence. Does this seem like a change that would make everyone happy? (I, personally, would feel much better) Ean5533 ( View! / Talk!) 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It sounds fine to me, except that I would add passing the rendering aspect of the test to the criterion. We could then have a note explaining which browsers pass the performance aspect of the test, and even state how "close" a browser is if it doesn't pass, provided that a citation to a reliable source can be given. -- Schapel (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Why not say that the performance aspect is disputed (instead of any Yes or No), with a side note saying that this is not accurately defined which leaves open several ways of interpretation? As this discussion proves, that would describe the facts best. --DeTru711 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ian Hickson, the author of the Acid 3 test, very clearly states that the performance aspect of the test is based on using "... whatever the top-of-the-line Apple laptop is at the time the test is run" and not getting any error messages such as "test XX took XXms (less than 30 fps)." While I personally think that metric is complete garbage and totally biased/unfair, it is the test author's choice. If we want to place value in his test, we have to follow all of his rules.
And that's fine, but I'm pretty sure you can throw a x64 32 CPU mega-server with Opera 10 (being a top-of-the-line server), and it will also pass the Performance test. Referring back to my original link, Safari is consistently taking 1-2 seconds more to pass the Acid3 on typical hardware, and it's rather misleading to suggest that Safari passes the performance aspect and Opera does not. Setting them both to NO and citing my original benchmark screenshot. Awaiting the minutes before the iSheep put it back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgillespie (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because one needs to run the test on the reference platform (a top of the line Apple laptop), and because original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Also, please assume good faith. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
However, I do think it's fair to mention it in the article. Maybe in the section where we list browsers that pass, we can make a note about the performance metric using a top-of-the-line apple laptop as the reference hardware. That will make it obvious to anyone that cares why Opera or other browsers are potentially handicapped. Ean5533 ( View! / Talk!) 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany

151.59.216.108 is right. Epiphany 2.28 released on 1 November 2009, part of GNOME 2.28, pass the test with 100/100. This happen also because of the switch in rendering engine from Gecko to WebKitGTK+. To find a reliable source I simply followed the link in Epiphany Wikipedia article:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/linux-garden-gets-a-new-gnome-with-version-228.ars
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/04/webkit-gtk-port-passes-acid3.ars
Then I just tried to compile and install Epiphany by myself. Try yourself. As today is the only WebKit solution for Linux that pass Acid3 test --Efa (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The only information I can find about how Epiphany does on the Acid3 test is that it currently scores 100/100. There is no information about rendering or performance, which are the other two aspects of the test. -- Schapel (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To be true, the links speak about the fix done to get perfect pixel rendering past in 2008. Anyway for the performance part test, you are right, I have no realiable source. I will write to ars technica asking for a clarification.

About that I'm in favor of rename the paragraph to "Browsers which score 100" (and so add Google Chrome and Midori), add a column "Pass" and write Yes when all the 3 criteria (Score 100/100, Pixel-perfect rendering and Performance) are all Yes from a reliable source. This clarify the confusion about the 100% of many users.--Efa (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The rendering under Ubuntu 9.10 is not Pixel-perfect, although it's damn close. Looks mostly like differences in line spacings. --86.69.114.171 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany gets 100/100, but fails the performance and is not pixel perfect. It should be mentioned in the article. Screenshots: [1] [2] Valcumine (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The link up here in my comment of 9 November 2009 say that the pixel perfect rendering was ok. I already added Epiphany some times ago, but was deleted by Schapel on 1 December. Please readd Epiphany.--Efa (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I just checked again, and your source says only that Epiphany's score is 100/100. The source does not mention the rendering or performance aspects. Please find reliable sources to cite for the information you're adding to the article, and then cite them in the article. -- Schapel (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I finally figured out how you're trying to use the sources for Epiphany. One source says that the WebKit version of Epiphany passes Acid3. That post was from April 2008. Another post says that Epiphany 2.28 is the WebKit version. You're trying to combine the information in the two sources to conclude that Epiphany 2.28 passes Acid3. I can think of two problems with this approach. First, the Acid3 test may have changed since April 2008, so the old information is not necessarily valid. Second, synthesis of published material is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. In short, you are using two references to come to the conclusion that Epiphany 2.28 passes Acid3. What we need is a reliable source that states that Epiphany 2.28 passes Acid3. We cannot add our own conclusions to Wikipedia, only conclusions stated in reliable sources. All we have is a source stating that Epiphany 2.28 scores 100/100. To go in the Browsers that Pass section, we need confirmation that the rendering is correct. I haven't seen a rendering done by Epiphany 2.28 on the browsershots site, and testing it myself would be original research. I've done Google searches, and cannot find information on how well Epiphany 2.28 renders Acid3. If someone can find a source, please list it. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

the only stable current version of Epiphany is the 2.28 based on one engine only, that is WebKitGtk. The old engine was abandoned.--Efa (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand completely. We need a reference that states that Epiphany 2.28 renders Acid3 correctly if we want to state that Epiphany 2.28 renders Acid3 correctly. We cannot deduce this conclusion and add it to the article. Do you have a reference? -- Schapel (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, i just tested Epiphany 2.29.3:

  • Failed 0 tests.
  • Test 26 passed, but took 60ms (less than 30fps)
  • Test 69 passed, but took 18 attempts (less than perfect).
  • Total elapsed time: 1.16s

Witek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.67.102 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this is original research, which we can't add to Wikipedia. Second, it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We know Epiphany scores 100/100. You do not mention the rendering, and you do not mention the specs of the computer you were testing on, which we would need to determine whether Epiphany passes the performance aspect. Again, what we need is a reliable source that describes how Epiphany 2.28 or later does on the rendering and performance aspects. -- Schapel (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Version 2.30.2 (under Ubuntu Lucid) is not pixel perfect. The drop shadows are cropped, and alignment of other bits is slightly off. Pretty minor, looks like it should otherwise pass, it's pretty fast. So it should be removed from the passing list, right? —Darxus (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it's questionable whether Epiphany passes the rendering aspect, so I'll change its rendering entry to ?. We should find a reliable source that says whether it passes or doesn't pass. -- Schapel (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I just tested 2.30.2 on Ubuntu 10.10 and also have the cropped drop shadows, however according to this and this blog posts by Alp Toker of GNOME, Epiphany managed to get 100/100 and pixel-for-pixel match against the reference in a preview release, I don't know if there was any regression since. --Chris Ssk talk 11:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
but we have also no information about the smooth criteria. I will have a look at the bugzilla of epiphany. mabdul 12:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I tested Epiphany on my laptop, which is two years old, and Epiphany completes every subtest at 30 fps or above. I also tested Opera 11.50 on a brand-new laptop with a 2.7 GHz Core i7 Sandy Bridge chip, which is the fastest available mobile processor from Intel. The specification for reference hardware for Acid3 states that the fastest laptop from Apple should be used, and there is no faster chip that Apple could use in a laptop. Opera always takes more than 50 ms (less than 20 fps) on subtest 26. I have updated the article with this information, but we still need citations from reliable sources so any reader can verify the information. -- Schapel (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the anti-Opera bias?

I thought there was supposed to be NPOV on Wikipedia. The Safari passed the performance tests and Opera does not is totally bogus, and seems to get constantly reverted back by some kind of Apple fanboi. Both companies claim 100/100 Acid3 compliance, neither elaborate as to if that includes the performance tests, yet it seems in the case of Apple you can infer it does, in the case of Opera it does not, DESPITE evidence suggesting that Safari performs significantly worse than Opera on the same hardware...

I know Opera has a low marketshare in the US, and Apple is an American company, and Americans like to support homegrown stuff, but showing extreme bias like this under compelling evidence that suggests it' bogus is just embarrassing (for the author that seems to want to keep reverting the edit). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.75.83.25 (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that states that Opera passes the performance aspect of Acid3 (a reliable source stating that Opera passes Acid3 would imply that Opera passes all aspects), feel free to update the article. No one has been able to find one yet, only sources that say that Opera scores 100/100 and has renders the test correctly. There is no bias -- we are just following Wikipedia's guidelines, such as verifiability and citing reliable sources. As for yourself, please do the same and assume good faith. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It's because the safari citation has an apple representative saying "safari passed acid 3" while the opera citation says "100% score on Acid3 test". Hence assuming the apple representative knew about the performance aspect and was providing the quote in good faith, safari must have passed the performance aspect. I think it's likely he just wasn't aware/didn't care about the performance aspect but meh -AlexTG (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
as per WP:Third-party sources none of the citation are reliable. I'm not questioning apple's claim but changing both Safari and Opera to show they passed based on their claim and adding the citation needed template to both. Chris Ssk talk 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The guideline you refer to does not say that first-party sources are not reliable sources, but that you cannot rely solely on first-party sources when you write an article. In other words, articles need citations from third-party sources. This article has plenty, so it meets the guideline. -- Schapel (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have a 3rd party source then put a note next to the "Yes" to show it, and if you have a source that says that Opera fails the performance aspect of Acid3, change it to "No" and again put the link. Both entries rely on press releases as sources, as per the guideline I posted above, such sources should be identified as claims, not facts. It makes no sense to me to take Apple's claim as fact but reject Opera's claim. As it stands both companies claim their browser passes the test, no 3rd party sources are available to show otherwise. Both should be set at Yes with {{citation needed}}. Chris Ssk talk 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the guideline you referred to above has nothing to do with the edits you're making. You can see the discussion above for all the details. The bottom line is that the source says Safari passes Acid3 (meaning it passes all three aspects), but the source for Opera only says it scores 100/100 (it passes only one aspect). Please discuss the issue before making further changes. Don't just make the change and post a message. Thank you. -- Schapel (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How are the guidelines not relevant? Wikipedia:Third-party_sources#Non-independent_sources says: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content from articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified."..."Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." yet you insist on removing the {{citation needed}} from the Safari entry saying that Apple's website is sufficient source. Furthermore while you accept apple's claim as fact you reject opera's claim. Chris Ssk talk 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to follow the guidelines, then say that Apple states that Safari passes the test. Don't say that there's a citation needed when a citation has already been provided. Once again, I do not reject Opera's claim. I fully acknowledge that Opera gets a score of 100/100 on the Acid3 test. What is in question, however, is whether Opera passes the performance aspect of the test. The latest source we have says that Opera does not. -- Schapel (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Apple states that Safari passes the test, and there is a citations for that. where does it say it has no timing issues? As noted on the Acid3 creator's blog [3] "The idea is to make sure that browsers focus on performance as well as standards. Performance isn't a standards-compliance issue, but it is something that affects all Web authors and users. If a browser passes all 100/100 subtests and gets the rendering pixel-for-pixel correct (including the favicon!), then it has passed the standards-compliance parts of the Acid3 test. The rest is just a competition for who can be the fastest." So Safari passing the test does not equal not having timing issues and Apple saying that they pass the test and Opera saying they got 100% (ie got 100/100 and rendered pixel-for-pixel correct) is the same thing. In fact I think both entires are wrong and should be changed to N/A or the performance column should be removed all together. Chris Ssk talk 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In saying that Safari passes the Acid3 test, that means there are no timing issues. -- Schapel (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
did you even read the quote I provided above? Chris Ssk talk 20:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this table is working out. The fact is that the performance test is very ambiguous and completly dependant on the computer it is run on. So really, unless we get a reliable source which compares the browsers on many different computers we can't be sure of anything. Right now we have two first party sources, neither of which specifically refer to the performance test and both of which would have been run on different computers. I would prefer we removed the table, listed the two browsers that passed and had a note stating that the performance aspect is ignored due to ambiguity of the test.-AlexTG (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Its quite clear how acid3 performance is tested. As mentioned in the article the "reference hardware" as set by the test creator is whatever the top-of-the-line Apple laptop is at the time the test is run.[4]
However, I agree that the table is not working, it confused me. if its for browsers that pass the Acid3 test (Note:For a browser to pass the acid3 test, it must have a 100/100 score, the final page must be identical to the reference rendering, and the animation has to be smooth (all tests less than 33ms)), then only Safari should be listed because as far as we know Safari is the only one to claim to pass all 3[5].
I think the "Browsers that pass" section could be changed to "Compliant Browsers" with a note explaining the performance aspect. Both Safari and Opera have passed the standards-compliance parts of the test (100/100 and rendering). --Chris Ssk talk 12:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the reliable source that say "browser X pass the test", should pubblish also a shot of the dialog box that appear clicking on A, that show the perfect timing on the reference hardware. Without that shot, we cannot really believe that they mean pass all the three parts of the test and not only the 100% compliance.--95.74.56.172 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki article should show this shot for passing browser too.--Efa (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a thought: why not say before the table that the sources come from first-party documents? That way, everything fits Wikipedia's rules about first-party sources without any subjectiveness. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this conversation has stalled. Should we remove the POV-check tag? Or leave it in? I'm pretty sure there's not an anti-Opera bias, but I'm not 100% sure that everything in the article is NPOV. Thoughts? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is, or ever was an anti-Opera bias here. There is an enormous bias in the test itself, and representing such a test in a non-biased way is therefore completely impossible. It's worth noting that the author of the test is a webkit developer, a Mac user and also that the "reference hardware" specified for the test is manufactured by the same company as the Safari browser; the performance aspect of the test can't really be represented in a way that is fair to all browsers for the simple reason that this requirement was not designed to be fair to all browsers.
The fact that it has been perceived as being anti-Opera is simply because Opera is the only competing browser to have done particularly well in the test, the test is also anti-Mozilla, anti-KHTML, anti-Netfront, anti-Blackberry and probably even anti-IE. Wikipedia can only represent this test "as is", to skew the results in a way that is somehow fairer would not be representing reality, so the banner should really be removed. ɹəəpıɔnı 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but as I've said previously, I think this needs to be noted in the article. I was planning to just add a note by the chart, but we can even put this information in the main argument. Any objections? --Unknownwarrior33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.208.24 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Updating

What's the standard for updating results? I got a better result than listed for a browser, but I fear that if I post a new picture, it will be taken down as original research. So what have others been doing? --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think others have been posting screenshots from their browsers. I have been checking to see that the screenshots agree with what others have said and match screenshots from browsertests. If I have no reason to believe that a screenshot does not accurately portray how a browser renders Acid3, I let it stand. I would avoid interpreting the results of the test, such as claiming that the rendering is correct or stating that the browser passes the performance aspect, as that crosses the line to original research by synthesizing data from multiple sources. -- Schapel (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot At Time Of Release

Why are the now-compliant browsers not listed with their "Screenshot at time of release"? These should be included for posterity. - ARC GrittTALK 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This has annoyed me since that change was made, and I agree. Fix it.--82.182.69.67 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 8 results?

I'd just like to chime in and say that it's silly that Original Research is not considered in this article. The Internet Explorer 8(on Windows 7) results I got completely disagree with this article's opinion. First off, I had to install a Microsoft plugin to even properly test the browser (which I think completely nullifies any results on this browser). After installing the plugin I got 16/100, then 20/100, then 6/100. The 6/100 was completely consistent, even after restarting my computer. I use IE8 as my main browser(I know...firefox bla bla) and I think that any MSIE8 figures should be removed or edited. Hubertforthcourse (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The core content policies of Wikipedia are No original research ,Neutral point of view and Verifiability and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. No offense but how can we verify that you ran the test with the correct settings? (On a site note, when I run the test in IE8 I get 20/100 in XP, Vista and 7). Also you cant remove facts from an article because you don't agree with them --Chris Ssk talk 13:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the bar?

I tried to remove Konqueror from this list, but my edit was undone, so I'd like to get a discussion started here. Konqueror has .03% of the market share. I know .03% is just a number, and there's no sense in picking a random number and using that as the bar. However, that is less than a huge number of other browsers not on this list (i.e. Netscape, and "unknown" beat out Konqueror, 70:1 and 20:1). Also, it's unsourced which means the burden of evidence lies with users wanting to add/keep the material. I also think even mentioning it violates undue weight: "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Market share is not the factor to determine the importance of the browsers listed. Acid3 tests are about the DOM and JavaScript, so basically the test is about layout engines and JavaScript engines. The main layout engines for web browsers are: Trident used by IE (JScript), Gecko used by Firefox (Spidermonkey JavaScript engine), WebKit used by Safari and Chrome (Safari uses JavaScriptCore as its JavaScript engine while Chrome uses its own V8 JavaScript engine), Presto used by Opera (Futhark JavaScript engine) and KHTML used by Konqueror (KJS JavaScript engine). There is no point in listing Netscape or Flock or Avant or Epiphany etc... Any Gecko-based browser will score the same as the Firefox version it is based on, same with WebKit-based browsers, Internet Explorer shells will score the same as IE. Konqueror uses a layout engine that is not represented by by any of the other browsers listed. --Chris Ssk talk 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I agree with most of what you said but you didn't reply to any of my arguments. This still fails V and UNDUE, right? My market share argument (though I agree it shouldn't be arbitrary) was because UNDUE specifically states "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Views aren't being expressed in this situation, facts are. We are comparing the different performances of different browsers/engines, rather than providing differing opinions of the browsers.-AlexTG (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Alex, using your logic, do we need to list all of the browser/user agents? Even the ones that almost nobody uses? Do we need to list NetSurf? Do we need to list Tkhtml? AWeb? The Bat? Entorage? None of them use layout engines discussed above. Also no one seems to be discussing verifiability. It was not sourced, I removed it (citing among other things verifiability) and somebody added it back in. I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Acid3 is a web browser test, I don't think it applies to e-mail clients like the The Bat or Entourage. If you think that a browser should be on the list but its not then please add it, Its my understanding that the 5 engines listed in my comment above (along with Tasman that is no longer used in a web browser) are generally accepted as the notable layout engines, and each of these engines is represented by its lead browser. Also if its an issue of verifiability of a claim then just add {{citation needed}} to it, don't remove the entry, and why only delete Konqueror? its not like the reference links for the rest are better. --Chris Ssk talk 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Its my understanding that the 5 engines listed ... are generally accepted as the notable layout engines" Ok. I guess I'm willing to concede that point since it's starting to look like I might be in the minority here. However, your second point that "its not like the reference links for the rest are better". That argument I still would like to disagree with. Any content that fails V can be challenged/removed by any editor regardless of how the other content stands up to V. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You are of course right about Verifiability, I was just making an observation that not only Konqueror but almost all the browser results are unreferenced. Here's a quick overview of the issues they have.
  • Chrome has no reference links
  • Firefox and SeaMonkey are unreferenced for the "release at time of Acid3 release" and "current release", the "preview release" has a screenshot and score of 3.7a1pre Minefield but the reference link is for 3.6a1pre Minefield.
  • Konqueror is also unreferenced for the "release at time of Acid3 release" and "current release", current and preview release info is outdated, and the reference link of the preview release is for a version older than the stable release, Screenshots are also for older releases.
  • IE is unreferenced for the “release at time of Acid3 release” and “current release”
Mobile browsers seem to also have the same problems. --Chris Ssk talk 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrome (Not Chromium)

For the latest Dev build of Chrome (Google Chrome 4.0.266.0), everything is perfect. The picture shown in the page shows that. Why is it listed as failing?

--Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind; just re-read the page. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrome tells me it's up-to-date (version 7.0.517.44), and Acid3 scores 100/100, and says that 0 tests fail, but it does NOT look like the reference image pixel-for-pixel. Namely, the "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL" red text is visible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.126.41 (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Acid3#A_specific_edit. for discussion about why your comment is original research. -- Schapel (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing disagreements

I understand completely why there is so much disagreement on this page. I'm not sure if this suggestion fits with Wikipedia's policies, but might it be useful to note the uncertain nature of these results on the page, near the chart? It would, if nothing else, make things clearer. The performance aspect, and the first-party statement from Apple, mean the listed results are not 100% perfect and exact, so people reading the page should be aware of that. --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody object to this? No one has replied. If not, I'll go ahead and add something. Let me know. --132.161.1.180 (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Opera Mobile 10 "beta" status

Firstly, Opera Mobile 10 is not listed in any of the tables in this article. I don't know what it scores, but it has the newest Presto 2.4 engine (the latest desktop browser contains Presto 2.2) which makes it quite notable I think.

However, this presents another issue. The latest "stable" version of Opera Mobile listed is 8.65. However, Mobile 9.7x has never been released as "final", and 10 is now out. Also, despite the current release being advertised as "Opera Mobile 10 beta 2" on the Opera Software website, it is the ONLY version officially available for download via opera.com. This makes me wonder if Opera are now using some "perpetual beta" type of versioning system for the Mobile product, though they have made no statement to this effect.

Which version should be included as the "current release" and "latest preview release" respectively in the table? Opera Mobile 10 beta 2 is definitely the "current release" if we're to go by what is the main official release provided for download. ɹəəpıɔnı 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Opera Mobile 10 is still only available in beta, however while 8.65 was the latest stable release that was available to download newer versions have been available pre-installed on many phones. It seems its Opera's strategy to release public betas but then only sell the finished product to manufacturers (sales of Opera Mobile is one of their major sources of income). HD2 ships with Opera Mobile 9.7 therefore I think Opera Mobile 9.7 is RTM and so a released product, with a score of 100/100, correct rendering and performance not an issue Opera Mobile could be moved to the "Browsers that pass" section --Chris Ssk talk 09:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll move Opera Mobile to the passing section as you suggested in that case, if noone objects. I'm not really sure about doing it myself, but I think you're probably right about their release strategy so... ɹəəpıɔnı 21:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Firefox

Firefox only passed with a score of 93 NOT 96. I can take a screenshot if you want me to. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 10:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting 94/100 with 3.7a1. It fails tests 71, 72, 77, 78, 79 and 80. Gyorokpeter (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have the Adblock Plus extension installed, Firefox only gets a 94 rather than 96 (97 with html5 parsing enabled) unless you properly configure Adblock Plus by whitelisting the acidtests.org domain name. The specific sections this causes to fail are tests 71, 72 and 80, which are exactly the same extra tests you are experiencing failures on.
Adding an Adblock Plus filter of the form:
@@acidtests.org
corrects the issue. Wgianopoulos (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't matter if Adblock Plus or any other add-on messes with the score; the test is supposed to be run without add-ons of any kind enabled as per the Passing Conditions. Thorenn (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

iPhone Safari Browser? Where is it?

Why is the iPhone safari rendering unavailable? Last time I was at this page, it was here. However, it seems to have been removed. Did something happen that I was not aware of? Is this vandalism that went by unnoticed?

Please enlighten me. I see no reason as to why the iPhone Safari rendering should be removed. 67.166.99.19 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, mybad. I didn't see that the rendering was located in the "Passing" section. 02:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.99.19 (talk)

I don't know if the move was "vandalism" or just a misunderstanding of the test but Mobile Safari shouldn't be in the browsers that pass, it gets 100/100 but the rendering is wrong with an X on the top right corner similar to Chrome 3. I'm moving Mobile Safari back to the browsers that don't pass Chris Ssk talk 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Opera (Wii) Browser

Nobody has yet posted Internet Channel results, or would it go under Opera Mobile/Mini? Should be posted at all? Refresh100 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note or no note?

So far, nobody has objected to my idea of noting the use of first-party sources above the passing browsers table. But when I added it, it got reverted with a comment that I don't understand. I know that anyone can see that the sources are first party by checking them, but I also think that this would quell any future arguments. So, what do you say? --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Such a note is irrelevant to the Acid3 test and doesn't belong in the article, IMO it takes away from the encyclopedic tone of the article and make it read more like a blog or a message-board. Problems with the article can be tagged, pointed out in the talk page, etc --Chris Ssk talk 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a tag for this particular issue? -unknownwarrior33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.196.74 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"[not in citation given]"

I removed the "[not in citation given]" tag. I don't know what is missing in the sources: 

By the end of March 2008, early development versions of the Presto and WebKit layout engines scored 100/100 on the test and rendered the test page correctly.[16][17][18]
At the time, no browser using the Presto or WebKit layout engines passed the performance aspect of the test.

mabdul 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Is anybody finding some source for Chrome, iCab and Iris-Browser?

Score goes down

I have noticed that if you run the acid3 test on IE8 and chrome, then click on "this reference rendering" link, then hit the back button, the acid3 test will run again and get a score that is 1 point lower (chrome4 went from 100 to 99, IE8 went down from 12 to 11). This happens every time. Firefox does not rerun the page, instead just instantly loading the final image from memory. I believe this should be noted, but I am not sure how it should be presented. --Taltamir (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This can't go to the article as it is original research, If you want to look more into the problem you could try reporting the bug in chrome. BTW, IE8 scores 20, it stays in 12 for a while but the test is actually still running and it eventually goes up to 20 --Chris Ssk talk 08:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Firefox not rerunning the page is Mozilla Bug 421131 - Acid3 breaks backwards / forwards buttons. If you use the back button drop-down to select the bottom entry that had the title "The Acid3 Test", Firefox does rerun the page and does not lose a point.Wgianopoulos (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
so... if I make a website detailing this issue and then link it as a reference, is it allowed for inclusion then? Would a post in my blog suffice? --Taltamir (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
@Chris Ssk - I'm fairly sure checking to see if a piece of software behaves a certain way does not constitute the kind of "original research" prohibited in Wikipedia's guidelines - this has been discussed a few times in various places around WP_talk:, but perhaps it's time it was stated somewhere explicitly ɹəəpıɔnı 12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems clearly original research to me. We need a citation to a reliable source, not a citation to someone's self-published blog. -- Schapel (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is one example of such a discussion, as a reference. The statements there are quite clear and uncontroversial I would think.
However, that said, I'd personally be against including this information in this article. While it technically doesn't violate the stated exclusions under the Acid3#Passing conditions section, it certainly doesn't constitute a "normal" way to run the test. This is a test of standards compliance and there is no standard governing the behaviour of a browser's back button - as such the intent of Acid3 cannot be to test whether the back button complies to any particular expectation. ɹəəpıɔnı 17:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's nice that there's a discussion, but trying a feature in a software product to conclude that it has a particular feature is clearly original research. So is reading a book or watching a DVD and drawing a conclusion about a plot point. Simply reference the manual for the software or a review of the book or DVD. -- Schapel (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but if you're implying that those are things that should be forbidden on Wikipedia, then I can only wish you the best of luck in setting out to delete a very large portion of the encyclopedia. You can start by deleting half of this article, especially the screenshots, along with ALL of the "Comparison of [some type of software]" articles. ɹəəpıɔnı 19:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, other stuff exists. That doesn't mean that the original research policy should be ignored. It's nice that there's a discussion, but let's leave it at that. Adding Taltamir's suggestion into the article would be blatantly against the rules. There isn't even a primary source that could back that up. Citing a primary source is allowed if the primary source is reliable so Schapel might be a little off. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Each and every one of us is the primary source, simply open your browser, go to acid3 website, and do what I described and you would notice it is true; you are now a primary source.--Taltamir (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The software package itself is a primary source - this should be allowable at the very least for all freely available applications, and even at that many articles reference sources (journals/etc) that are not freely available, so that is probably still a restriction too far.
Yes, primary sources are not recommended as the basis for articles, but I don't seriously think it's all that unreasonable that software be considered a source. Consider why WP:OR might actually have been put in place - somehow I doubt it was to prevent this. ɹəəpıɔnı 00:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No, software packages and people are not sources. Published materials are sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is grounded in source-based research. That is why there is no original research allowed -- you should not put your conclusions in Wikipedia. I don't see original research in this article. The comparisons articles may contain some original research, but by and large, I can verify the information in them without original research (for example, by looking at a published description of the program). In any case, the fact some exists in Wikipedia is not an argument for allowing more of the same. Wikipedia undoubtedly has typos, but that does not mean typos should not be fixed. -- Schapel (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the same position as shapel. But what is now the problem? The problem reported by Taltamir is by passing conditions no longer a problem. And as long as nobody will write an article, this won't go in this article. This is totally irrelevant! mabdul 12:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Konqueror 4.4 released

Has anybody tried acid3 with the new version of Konqueror? I'd like to know if anything has changed. --Anttipng (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

New version 4.4.3 released not too long ago. --Anttipng (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chronological order for browsers that pass

Why the chronological order for browsers that pass? The order in which they passed doesn't matter; what matters is which browsers pass, and which versions of those browsers pass. In a few years when this section has many browsers in it, it should be easy to find whether a particular browser passes, and the versions that pass. Let's simplify the layout by putting all browsers that use a particular engine together. We can list the most popular engines first, so the order would be Trident, Gecko, WebKit, Presto, etc. Do we even need to list the dates in the table? What is the importance of them? -- Schapel (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

For the dates , the dates are so important because it is a race between Internet browsers ,and release date is important . Safari is always proud that it is te first to pass acid2 test and the first to pass acid3 test . also internet explorer has the shame because it is the last major browser to pass acid2 test . We can not take away that pride or shame even if we love internet explorer more than safari .For me i prefer dates ro be in a seperate column Melnakeeb (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the Acid3 test is not a race. The importance of the Acid3 test is absolutely not which browser passes first! The importance is that when browsers pass, then the features tested by Acid3 can be used by web developers and they can be confident that their sites will work. I think the emphasis put on dates makes readers think that's an important piece of information, when in fact it's trivia. Internet Explorer was shamed into passing Acid2, and now that it passes Acid2 it should be praised. Currently, IE performs very poorly on Acid3 and is being shamed. When IE passes, it should be praised, because by passing, that makes like easier for web developers and lets users enjoy better websites. -- Schapel (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I Agree with you . Acid 3 is not a race for users and developers ,but it is for their good . But isn't market share of an Internet browser, get affected by its standards-compliance ?;at least in the The second browser war ;making market share degradation and elevation of an Internet Browser hard to understand if dates are removed . I am not trying to start an endless (which one is praised or or shamed ) debate  ; I am only discussing the importance of dates. Melnakeeb (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
how about this change? I made the table sortable and included a new column releasedate. this is maybe the path between both solutions. mabdul 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'l tell ya what I think about it: It's a darned fine and overdue idea. Good work! (It's seems so obvious, now; why didn't we do this sooner?) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It is magnificant !! Reader can choose to sort by date or group by engine . It is no longer an editor problem . Well done ! Melnakeeb (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Windows Mobile 6

I think Windows Mobile 6 needs to be updated to about version 6.5.5

wolfblake 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Internet Explorer Mobile 6, thats the version that comes with WinMo 6.5 and as far as I know it hasnt changed in any of the 6.5.x versions. A new version of IEM will come with WinMo 7 --Chris Ssk talk 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference Hardware and Desktop Browsers

The current Browsers that pass section separates passing browsers into "Desktop Browsers" with a performance column and "Mobile Browsers" with no performance column. The last column is excluded for mobile browsers as they "cannot be run on the reference hardware" - however many desktop browsers can't be run on the reference hardware either - Trident, while unlikely to pass anytime soon, is one example that can never pass the performance test. Surely this section should be divided into two tables - "Mac Browsers" and "Browsers on Other Platforms".

In particular, an affected case that comes to mind is the Opera 10.50 browser, of which a stable release is out on Windows, but has not been released at all for Mac. I think it's reasonable to assume that 10.50 would most likely pass perf. if the reference hardware were a PC, however as it's physically impossible to test it, so it technically belongs in the second table as it can't be run on reference hardware.

Thoughts? ɹəəpıɔnı 15:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

what about bootcamp? it was only mentioned that is the latest mac-HARDWARe, nobody said something about the os! mabdul 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent point. Never mind then. ɹəəpıɔnı 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Opera still doesn't pass

According to some recent discussion in Talk:Comparison_of_web_browsers, Opera still doesn't pass the performance aspect of the test and Chrome does. Of course, this just confirms what we've suspected all along, but I thought some people here might be interested in seeing the details of the timing tests, which can be seen in screenshots of the Acid3 report. Also of course, this is all original research, so I will leave the ? for Opera's result on performance and not change it to No. -- Schapel (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless some of the tests in those screenshots were done in a bootcamp Windows install (as mentioned above by Mabdul), then I don't think Opera 10.50 can possibly pass the test anyway, original research or no. ɹəəpıɔnı 02:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot

"Screenshots of latest release at time of Acid3 release" are currently only shown for those that don't pass. Is it worth adding those back in for those that do pass or removing those screenshots for those that don't pass? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's not much of a point in showing the screenshots at the time of release, except to show how poorly browsers did at the time of Acid3's release. The screenshot from one browser would suffice to illustrate this point. As it is, some of the screenshots show how browsers did after improving on the test for months, because the test was available for months before it was officially released. -- Schapel (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
shouln't we add then these screenshots at the passed browser section? mabdul 15:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? The information isn't useful in any way I can think of. If we want to illustrate how much browsers have improved on Acid3, one screenshot of Firefox 2.0 or IE7 would suffice. -- Schapel (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed all those screenshots. Have a look and see if it's fairer, or revert it if it's not suitable. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Windows Internet Explorer Testing Center

Microsoft has said they're not interested in Acid3 because it's not representative of the actual usefulness of a browser. So you might ask them to show what would be a representative test. At a glance they seem to have done an excellent job, here: http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/

(It also shows how hard the current release of IE fails.)

Do you agree this deserves brief mention on this page, and probably its own document? —Darxus (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To mention it in this article, you should find a reliable source that says that those tests are Microsoft's answer to Acid3. We should not add our own conclusions and opinions to Wikipedia. If you create an article about those tests, it should cover primarily what secondary sources say about the tests, because primary sources should not be used as the main basis for Wikipedia articles. -- Schapel (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft put IE9's Acid3 results on their platform demo page. Acid3 results have also been included in blog posts detailing new features in each of the three platform demos released so far, so I don't think it's fair to say that Microsoft isn't interested in Acid3. But if anyone finds any Microsoft-related criticism of the test, it should certainly go into the criticism section of the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Browsers that do not pass, Mobile browsers section

A few of the browsers in this section need to be updated, there is a new BlackBerry Browser out with BlackBerry OS 6, Symbian^3's browser, Skyfire 2.0 for Android, I think some others are also outdated. --Chris Ssk talk 10:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A specific edit.

I'd like to discuss this edit (which has been removed from the article twice by myself and one other editor). It's pretty clearly original research since no reliable sources have been added. Does anybody disagree? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I already removed the edit as OR. Thought not really relevant to Wikipedia, I also believe that the the editor's argument is wrong. He/she says that since when he/she runs the test the "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL" is shown then Chrome fails the rendering part of the test. As the test page says "the final page has to look exactly, pixel for pixel, like this reference rendering." Chrome shows the final page exactly, pixel for pixel, like this reference rendering, therefore passing the rendering aspect of the test. --Chris Ssk talk 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claims of webkit passing performance test

I've marked this up yet again. There is no reliable source been added to establish this is anything other then a promotional claim for the webkit products. Self published promotion sources (like the webkit, apple or google blogs)are not reliable sources and to my knowledge there are no reliable sources available. If there are please add them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The sites you mention are not self-published sources; they are not personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs. They are official sites of large organizations. In another article's discussion page where you brought the topic up before, someone else explained that Self published information by corporations is generally considered a reliable source. Could you point to a specific Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that the sources you mention are not reliable? Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
And someone replied Are we looking at the same Wikipedia? By definition such sources are not independent, and they are (or should be) treated with great care.
The specific Wikipedia policy is WP:ABOUTSELF. If you have doubt take it to WP:RSN. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF refers to self-published sources, which these websites are not. You can feel free to take any of the sources you think are not reliable to WP:RSN for a second (or really, third) opinion. -- Schapel (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems self-published to me. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So if you're not going to take this to WP:RSN then the material will be removed. I've already taken reasonable efforts to find sources but drawn a blank. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for posting this issue on WP:RSN. I look forward to this situation being cleared up one way or the other. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anyone agreeing on the reliable sources noticeboard that the sources for Safari and Chrome passing Acid3 are unreliable. Could you now remove the dubious claim tags from the article? Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AQFK did. But I agree it's a Primary source and unclear consensus is not against it's use so I shall remove the tags. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This whole Safari passing because Apple say so, but nothing else does, because nobody else feels the need to spin it, stinks. In the REAL WORLD, if Safari passes, so should Opera, because they both get 100/100 and Opera fails the performance tests by a lesser extent.

File:OperaAcid3.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

FF4 and IE9 unsupported Acid3 features

Is it relevant and should it be explained in the article that Firefox doesn't support SVG fonts not by inability to implement but by choice and that is supports WOFF instead. This is explained every time it comes up in Firefox forums, but is there a reliable source about it? Its also the same for IE9's support of SVG fonts and SMIL animation. --Chris Ssk talk 08:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Firefox 4 Acid3

I've just ran the Acid3 test on Mozilla Firefox 4.0 Stable (final release) running under Ubuntu Linux 10.10 Maverick Meerkat and on the Acid3 page what I see doesn't match the screenshots here. I get a 97/100 score, but see red text saying "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL" in the top-left corner. Is this something that has occured in the final releases? I can't recall seeing it in the betas. 86.163.78.6 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 6 Final

Testing Acid3 on Firefox 6.0 final I get "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL" in the top left corner. I have no add-ons running that could be affecting the page, nor have I changed the font size, zoom factor or codepage. Running it on Windows 7 (32-bit). Anyone else the same? 86.173.134.80 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OmniWeb on the "Browsers that pass" Table

There is apparently some debate over whether OmniWeb 5.10 should be in this table as I've seen nine edits to that section of the article over the past week and have seen OmniWeb vanish and reappear just today. I've never heard of OmniWeb before today so I have no input to offer but such frequent edits to the same data tells me that it's something that needs to be discussed. --Kitsunegami (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've finally removed it because no one could find a reliable source to cite. I think some users see the 100/100 score and jump to the conclusion their browser passes. -- Schapel (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nokia's Symbian Anna browser

I think it's not mentioned in the article, but it scored much higher than the S60v5 browser. --MK (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for that? mabdul 20:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This Italian blog has an article about it. I don't have the phone so I can't confirm. --MK (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove screenshot of preview release column?

The original intent of the Screenshot of preview release column was to show the progress that was being made on support for Acid3 features. Currently, each browser's preview release screenshot is missing or is identical to the current release. Because these screenshots do not seem to be fulfilling their original purpose any longer, I propose removing this column. -- Schapel (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. (I'm even not always really sure if the were free!) mabdul 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet Explorer Mobile 9: Current?

Is Internet Explorer Mobile 9 really the current version of the browser on Windows Phone 7? I don't have a stock device to check that on, and the section in the Windows Phone 7 article contradicts itself.

I know that IE Mobile 9 is included in the latest emulator ROM and the Mango developer beta, but both of those releases are clearly marked beta and should be considered preview releases. -Spectere (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Windows Phone 7.5 which contains Internet Explorer Mobile 9 has already been release to manufacturing and is already shipping on Windows Phones in Taiwan, Japan, and Russian. Illegal Operation (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing of image caption to incorrect version

The caption for the image 150px is being changed to Mozilla Firefox 8.0a1. However, this is an incorrect description, as the file description is April 20th, 2011 build of Firefox 6a1 Nightly. The caption cannot be changed without updating the image, and this is why it is being preserved. It does not matter what the most recent build is, the image shown is not the most recent build. - SudoGhost™ 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

17 Sept. 2011 change to Acid3.

I changed the article to reflect the change that Ian Hickson announced today 2011-09-17. I did not update the information (and images) related to browsers which now pass all the subtests. Espadrine (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:OperaMobile11 10.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OperaMobile11 10.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The issue of what reliable sources are has come up again. The Safari and Chrome blogs were deemed reliable sources, and they say that Safari and Chrome fully pass Acid3. We don't have reliable sources for other browsers passing Acid3. I tried to fill in the information in the table for which we do not have reliable sources, but this information was original research, which can be removed if challenged. I have removed the information that does not have a reliable source and replaced it with a "?" along with a tag indicating that a citation is needed. -- Schapel (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Go along, make your updates again, I won't stop you anymore. If you want to make Wikipedia a fanboy site to pretend that your favorite browser is still better than others despite this not being the facts, go along. I will not revert your edits anymore. But remember: lies will still be lies, even if they are repeated over and over again and even if they make it into Wikipedia. If you believe that making Wikipedia a place for stupid idiot fanboys is a good path to go, go along. It is beyond my power to stop you and I'm unwilling to deal with this shit.--DeTru711 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Now now, please assume good faith with other users' actions and be civil. I'm a fan of IE and Firefox and believe that they do both pass the test, but, that's original research and we have no real verifiability.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
There obviously is no real verifiability which is why I supported not to include any of these claims in the first place. Actually this should have been removed a long time ago as the inclusion of which browser passes the test a little more and which browser passes the test a little less has been fanboyism all the way.
Even Ian Hickson, the creator of the test himself kind of admitted that including the Performance part in the test (as part of the test) was a stupid idea (http://www.hixie.ch/tests/evil/acid/004/ LESSONS FROM ACID3: no performance stuff as part of the test). I wished he would have undone his mistake then there would be no need to argue. But the facts remain that there is no real verifiability and whether or not browser X passes this aspect of the test remains a matter of (more of less religious) belief.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the test itself, not how it affects browser relationships.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I just tried it out, and it seems that my Firefox 6.0.2 got 100/100. This surprised me, because I remember Firefox showing 97/100 for the longest time. I'll look online and see if I can find some reliable sources for this. - SudoGhost 03:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be the only real thing that comments on this, but I'm not sure it would be considered a reliable source. However, I could be wrong, so I wanted to post it here and get a second opinion. Any thoughts? - SudoGhost 03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I would consider this reliable, but not alone adequate.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This change in the Acid3 code was apparently implemented today (unless I'm misreading this). Therefore I'd imagine that if we give it a few days, solid reliable sources will make mention of this. Commenting out some of the code might also be important to mention in the article, as it affects Acid3. - SudoGhost 04:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Google Plus would not be reliable per WP:FACEBOOK.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I know, that's why I said we should give it a few days, hopefully solid reliable sources will make mention of it, and we can use those to improve the article. - SudoGhost 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I maintain my position that there should be no judgement whether or not a certain browser passes the Performance part at all. It should be included that it is part of the test, but due to the lack of verifiability there should be no judgement on which browser passes and which doesn't. It's as simple as that.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree - the article is not judging the browsers.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as the Performance aspect is concerned, it does. Why? Because of the lack of verifiability which browser really passes this aspect and which doesn't.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No, we're only listing the scores. The scores are only data - they're not judgements.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You may have missed what triggered this controversy. Some folks (especially Scharpel) tried to get judgements based on the Performance aspect into this Wikipedia article again. I then removed the Performance aspect entirely (and I believe this is still the current state) because the Performance aspect isn't verifiable and just a bunch of claims made by some fans of a certain browser.
Listing the scores is fine, there is hopefully also no dispute on that. --DeTru711 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so - I just believe Scharpel is only making sure everything is verifiable. Please note that a few missing pieces of data do not invalidate the entire data set.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Right, the test was changed today and all of the major browsers score 100/100 and pass the test. The only issue is about some idiots who still maintain that their favorite browser passes the test a little bit more.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it's the lack of verifiability. I don't even know if SudoGhost, Schapel, and I like the same browsers.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Right, it's the lack of verifiability. Why include something in this Wikipedia article as facts which cannot be reliably verified? All that I've been proposing since the beginning of this debate is not to include what is not verifiable.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The data for some browsers is verifiable. We include those because they are reliable. It's like we don't exclude data about the temperatures around the world in all such articles just because a few of them don't have reliable data to show.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
We may be in the same boat (please read my comment above). Listing the scores is fine, there should only be no (unverifiable) judgements based on the Performance aspect, as some folks tried to make.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
We aren't making any judgements. Explain why you believe so.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It is this revision and section that I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acid3&oldid=451067445#Desktop_browsers -- this is what Schapel tried to publish and this is what I strongly disagree with (and in fact, this is what started the discussion here). This revision clearly includes judgement (aka Chrome and Safari pass the test a little bit more than the rest).--DeTru711 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acid3&oldid=451079043#Desktop_browsers is what I am proposing: not to include any comments on whether or not a certain browser passes the Performance aspect at all.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No it doesn't judge - lack of data does not mean less passage. Missing data only is a reminder that Wikipedia is and always will be growing.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
To introduce unverifiable judgements in Wikipedia is adding religious beliefs to Wikipedia, and that's the reason why I will no longer be a contributor to Wikipedia, because what I want to find here are facts and not religion.--DeTru711 (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Or let me describe this in other words. Only because people from Apple (for Safari) and Google (for Chrome) each wrote a blog article where they explicitly made a statement that their browsers pass the Performance aspect, doesn't make Safari and Chrome pass the test more than other browsers, whose manufacturers did not write a blog article with an explicit statement that their browser passes the Performance aspect. Schapel is simply making his point based on these blog articles by the browser manufacturers themselves, but that is neither an independent nor a reliable source. --DeTru711 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There are no religious beliefs in this article. If you have a problem with the article's neutrality, it's up to you to be able to discuss with us so it gets changed. We have other reliable sources too; Schapel isn't only using these blogs. Blogs are reliable sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this article has serious problems in terms of neutrality. I even go as far as to calling it a religious playground. But I don't engage in religion, that is something for retards.--DeTru711 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Woah there - please be careful with the language you use on Wikipedia (since Wikipedia is in the real world). For the last time, data does not connotate bias.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

100/100 does not mean a full pass of Acid3

Again, there's a misunderstanding that a score of 100/100 on the Acid3 test means that a browser fully passes the Acid3 test. As the article explains in detail, there are two other aspects to the test. One is the rendering aspect, which means that the displayed web page is exactly, pixel for pixel, equal to the reference image. The second is the performance aspect, which states that every subtest must complete in 33 ms on the fastest laptop currently available. If you click on the large "A" on the acid test, an alert dialog will appear where can see that Subtest 26 takes longer than 33 ms in Opera, Firefox 6, and Internet Explorer. In any case, we need citations to reliable sources before we can state that browsers pass these aspects of the test. -- Schapel (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you have the fastest laptop avaiable in the world?
Well, I did just two weeks ago. Last month I purchased a Lenovo T520 with a Core i7-2620M processor. I now see that two weeks ago a slightly faster mobile processor came out which runs at 2.8 GHz instead of 2.7 GHz. That's still not enough to get Firefox to pass, because it takes 40 ms on subtest 26 on the 2.7 GHz processor. In any case, we need a citation from a reliable source that says whether browsers pass this aspect of the test before we can give an unqualified Yes or No in the article. -- Schapel (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)
I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox 9 passes the performance aspect because of improved JavaScript performance. If so, we can update the article when it's released. -- Schapel (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Update: Firefox 7 takes 39 ms to complete test 26 on a computer that is 4% slower than the reference platform. If Firefox 8 is 10% faster than Firefox 7, it will be very close to a full pass. -- Schapel (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Another Update: Firefox 9 takes 34 ms to complete test 26 on an Intel Core i7 2640-M, so Firefox is on the verge of passing the performance aspect. Opera 12 takes 47 ms on the same computer, so Opera will need some significant work on performance before it passes. -- Schapel (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the completion time supposed to be calculated? The completion time on an old computer may differ from the time on a new computer. Which time is used for determining whether the test has passed? (130.237.227.39 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Please read the article. It explains in detail. -- Schapel (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 9 doesn't pass?

It looks like Internet Explorer 9 doesn't pass Acid3 because of rendering problems. Internet Explorer Mobile 9 shows a red box in the upper right corner. You can see it in the screenshot used in the article and if you know where to look it's clearly visible in the screenshot in the citation we use for saying it scores 100/100. As for the desktop version of Internet Explorer 9, it doesn't support text-shadow, which is used on the Acid3 test. You can see the lack of the shadow behind the text "Acid" in this screenshot as compared to the reference rendering. I think we should remove both versions of IE from the "Browsers that pass" section because these are noticeable rendering problems. We should point out what these rendering problems are in the text below the screenshots. -- Schapel (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Chrome doesn't pass?

Chrome results are not stable on this new ACID3 test. There have been a lot of reports of Chrome failing 0, 1 or 2 tests and I have actually seen Chrome fail a test on the new ACID3 test on a Chrome 13 install. Also seen reports of performance issues with the Chrome versions on ACID3. (mayby related?). Without reliable recent sourcing chrome shoulds not be listed as passing the test anymore. 62.58.32.206 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There have always been various reasons that some tests of Acid3 fail in certain situations and not others; the article lists several of these reasons. One reason Chrome may not pass the performance test is if someone tries to run it on hardware other than the reference platform. When I try Chrome, it gives me the 100/100 score and the rendering looks good. -- Schapel (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected article: Update Opera Mobile

I am not registered, but I would like to see the following.

Opera Mobile passes the rendering as seen in This image (to be deleted 29 September for not being in use). Sure it is “original research” if you want to bicker about it, but I see it more as a fact that is reproducible, in addition to none of the other “verified” browsers linking to any citation. They are simply verified because they are reproducible.

On that note, I would also like to challenge the Chrome notion of performance. It has been listed here for year[s?], and it is widely acknowledged on forums, blogs, etc. due to that, but I have yet to see a screenshot or any reliable source mentioning that it passes the performance part. In my own tests, Opera and Chromium have had varied results, consistently being too slow on the same two tests. I imagine that, given the same hardware as Chromium supposedly passes on, both will pass fine. Also, isn't it in theory possible to fabricate such a result on a supercomputer (or merely a very good computer)? It would be nice if someone on a good computer by today's standards could test unmodified versions of the current browsers. The rendering question is at least not a matter of hardware and OS specifications, and should be reproducible on any system able to run the browsers in question.

Lastly, I would like to see a note added to Opera Mini. A regular reader will undeniably say that it performs terrible by looking at this article. It should be mentioned that Mini does take “short cuts” on purpose, for the sake of being a quick browser designed for slow mobile networks, and low hardware specifications of early smart phones. Specifics can be seen in its article, but I think a short note about it should be made here. It is not designed to pass CSS standards, unlike Opera Mobile. 158.37.73.42 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In news, this should be added as a new section. Parts of Acid3 were commented out as they might be changed in future browsers. It's quite relevant to this article, as it might impact scores on even older versions of browsers. I noticed after submitting this that it had in fact been added as a short paragraph, but it deserves more focus than it has due to its impact on all future tests (read some of the comments to the G+ post, for instance). 158.37.73.42 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with saying that Opera Mobile renders Acid3 properly, as long as no one else objects. We still need a source to cite. How about saying that Epiphany renders it properly, too? Of course, a citation is needed in both cases.
As for Chrome, there is a citation to a source that says it fully passes the Acid3 test. In your own tests, are you running the test on the reference hardware as mentioned in the article? If not, what hardware are you running it on and what are the results? -- Schapel (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why Opera Mobile itself, as a program, can not be a source of something that can be produced by simply running it. There is a source used earlier in the article about Opera Mobile 9.7 Beta, however. No idea if that accounts for also rendering it correctly, though just use the provided image if you must.
The Chrome citation is not apparent in this article. This site mentions that it completely passes, but does not provide any proof for that. There is no reference to hardware used (supercomputer?), nor does indicate whether it actually passed, or if it just didn't fail any tests (which people have shown time and time again to fail to understand). I am personally running on older-than-current hardware, but it is because I am getting similar results between Opera and Chromium (with the latter often having worse results than the former, even) I am mildly annoyed at not seeing actual proof that Chrome passed. The results seem roughly the same with the current versions as they did in 10.5 and 4.x, respectively. If someone conducted a test on a more current computer and saw a larger difference between the two (with Chrome consistently passing and Opera not), I'd be content. All of the videos or extensive reviews I see of browser testing fail to look at, or mention, anything beyond the rendered image and score, which they also often refer to as completely passing the test. Even the image used of Chrome 9 in this very article fails by performance. I challenge you to find a single image of Chrome completely passing, because I struggle at that. The best I can do in both Chrome and Opera's cases are images where test 26 is the only test failing by performance. 158.37.73.121 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As for your comment about Opera Mobile, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be using the term "source" in a different way than Wikipedia means by the term reliable source, and in addition, you seem to be conflating saying that Opera Mobile produced This image with saying that Opera Mobile renders the Acid3 test correctly. In order to draw that conclusion, you must interpret the screenshot to draw a conclusion.
As for your comment about the Chrome citation, you seem to holding it to a higher standard than other citations used all over Wikipedia. As far as I've ever seen, a reliable source saying something has always been good enough. But for you, this particular citation is not good enough -- you need incontrovertible proof. I have a feeling that no proof would ever be sufficient for you.
Now, could you answer my simple questions -- would you be okay with me saying that Epiphany renders Acid3 correctly, provided that I leave the tag saying that a citation is needed? What hardware are you running the Acid3 test on using Chrome and Opera, and what are your results? -- Schapel (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I can submit as part of the "proof" you request this discussion from a year and a half ago that shows Chrome running test 26 in less than half the time that Opera does. If you have new evidence that contradicts this information, I'm perfectly willing to discuss it with you. -- Schapel (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
On Opera Mobile: I merely see it that certain things cannot be sourced to written material. Certain things are just facts, and can be proven or checked by other means than written material. I would say that it's common knowledge; not because everyone knows it, but because anyone can verify it without relying on any specific prior knowledge. It's just a fact. Sure, Opera could write an official post about it passing, and then you'd have your source, but what difference would that make to someone having tested the same thing which others are able to verify? It's not original research. It's not a [baseless] theory that requires prior knowledge and understanding.
On citations: Sure, Wikipedia uses poor sources everywhere. My issue with this particular source is that I've tried, and I can't find any data to back it up. I am challenging the claim based on the apparent issues people have in providing a proof. I'm not requesting every source to be irrefutable from the get-go, but at the very least, it has to be verifiable from something that does not originate from the same source (unless it's just a citation). Otherwise, it's the original research of that source.
On to your questions: (1) I see no reason to change any data on Epiphany from groundless assumption. If you had tested Epiphany yourself and it did pass it, you could say that it did. Others would be able to verify if disputed. And I'm not saying this is true for all kinds of data, but this would be a pure fact that anyone can validate without any special knowledge. (2) My computer is too old for the test. I'm the one who started the thread you linked. Currently, it fails test 26 in both Chromium and Opera, and 69 seems a bit luck based, though it currently has a high success rate in Chromium while other tests are sometimes slow (test 00 was too slow a few times). 69 fails often in Opera, but not always. The speed of test 26 is roughly the same in both browsers (~100 ms), but can sometimes spike in my testing. The ones I used in that image was a best-case scenario over 30 tests at that time, and does not reflect what happened every time. Find a computer that passes test 26, and you'll have system requirements to reference for a passing grade. The ambiguous system requirements is the most difficult part about this article. 158.37.73.121 (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not common knowledge that Opera Mobile renders the Acid3 test correctly. It's just a groundless assertion (your words). Here's a screenshot of Chrome passing the Acid3 test on a laptop computer, one that is about 4% slower than the current reference hardware of the fastest available laptop. As I mentioned last month, Opera always takes more than 50 ms on test 26 on the same computer. I think that's all there is to say about the matter, unless you can provide some sources to back up your claims. -- Schapel (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Chrome passing the Acid3 test
Okay, I'll yield on the Chrome issue on the basis of that picture. (I would like to see Opera on the same setup, though I assume this is from your own test since you're saying it always takes more than 50 ms.) On groundless, see dictionary: “Having no ground or foundation; unsubstantiated”. It is a fact that you can produce the reference picture with Opera Mobile. That is in no way groundless. It doesn't have a reliable citable source, but it is easily verifiable without any special knowledge. I don't get all this Wikipedia bureaucracy around having a citable source for certain things like this. But I'm not here to argue that. I simply don't see why the image provided is an invalid source, and that's what I'm leaving the discussion at. In this case, especially, since almost every other rendering claim in this article is attributed to an image of the same character. 158.37.73.121 (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Chrome don't pass Acid3. I've tried it several times to avoid any network based issues and nothing works, still performance is too low.

Proof:

http://i51.tinypic.com/11vp1y1.png

My computer parameters:

3,06 GHz Intel Pentium IV GeForce GTX 280

My network parameters:

10Gbps in France and Western Europe (OVH).

So someone need to correct false information - Chrome don't pass whole test, performance is still weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.27.90 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A Pentium IV is not the reference hardware for the performance aspect of the test. Please read the article to understand your mistake. Also, Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not original research. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free file problem

File:Opera Mini 6.1 Acid 3 test.png was removed from this article because it either does not have a Non-free use rationale or there are problems with the existing rationale. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the applicable policy and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for how to fix the problem. If further input or help is needed, questions can be directed towards Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or my talk page. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This article clearly has NPOV problems, and I will be tagging as such. Opera needs a citation before it gets a Yes, but all the others get a Yes without citations??? Rather odd, and the same old Fanbois keep reverting it back to this state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskincowboy (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Chrome and Sarafi have citations that say they pass Acid3 fully. They have been checked multiple times. Look at them yourself. In addition, I have personally checked Chrome, Firefox, and Opera. Chrome passes and Firefox and Opera do not. -- Schapel (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acid3/Archive_4&oldid=1143391201"