Talk:Intro : Comparison: Standards Comparison

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search

jgraham: This page is really quite arbitary at the moment. Someone (Hixie ;) ) who has a better idea of the true support for various things should update it. I'm also quite tempted to add an "others" line where we can put stuff like XUL, XBL, HTCs, proprietry DOM and so on.

michaell: I'm not sure of the idea of trying to describe the level of support and compliance with standards in a single word. It's arbitrary now, and I think it always will be even if Hixie looks at it.

jgraham: On the contrary, I think the coarseness is good because it doesn't pretend to be totally accurate, just to give an idea of which things are supported in which browsers. It is a fact that Mozilla supports MathML and other browsers don't, for example. We should say that somewhere and here seems like a reasonable place. The problem, obviously, is marginal cases where there are several browsers supporting parts of a standard each with different implementations and different quirks e.g. CSS2. There are sites which claim to have full CSS2 comparison charts (which I'm happy to link to from this page) but they're inaccurate because the tests are generally based on the simplest possible case rather than how well the implementation holds up when combined with other aspects of behaviour. On the other hand, it's pretty well known that Mozilla/safari/Opera have better CSS2 support than IE, and I think it's reasonable to say that.

I've added a key to indicate what each keyword means; hopefully that makes it clearer what should go in each category to someone who knows how each browser behaves. The arbitariness wasn't so much the classifcation in cases where I have a good idea of the level of support but the classifcation in areas that I don't know about e.g. I have no idea what the level of DOM2 support in IE/Opera/Safari is, so I inferred it from their commitment to standards generally. there is also some artbitariness in the colours/classes used; I've used "good" (i.e. green) to indicate "as good as or better than than average support" i.e. one can have "good" support for DOM3 without implementing much of the spec. This might not be the best approach.

It's also fine to add in notable supported features e.g. text-shadow for Safari CSS2, counters for Opera, and so on.

michaell: fair enough. Given the definitions, I don't think we can call IE's CSS1 support less than "excellent" really - IE 6 does implement most of it, and there aren't a large number of bugs (there are bugs, but then bugs exist in most of the stuff we've labelled "excellent" for Gecko and others...).

  • Link to IDN needed. No idea.
  • Gecko supports XLink? Any testpages?

--hao2lian

This page is horribly out of date, and I doubt anyone wants to spend time keeping it up to date. I suggest we just link to this page instead. Any objections? --Np 15:38, 29 August 2005 (PDT)

I'll take that as a no.--Np 14:28, 6 September 2005 (PDT)