Additional Tests Submitted to the W3C CSS 2.1 Test Suite


It’s been just over five months since the MIX08 conference and IE8 Beta 1. One of the things I remain committed to is the furthering of web standards through a comprehensive test suite for each standard. This is necessary to eliminate ambiguities or differences that cause implementation differences between user agents (aka browsers). Those differences create frustration for web developers who are just trying to build web sites that interoperate.

The IE team has been actively working on Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2. In parallel with the CSS 2.1 implementation in the upcoming beta, the IE Test team has been developing test cases against the CSS 2.1 specification. Today we’re happy to announce that we’ve submitted an additional 2524 more test cases to the W3C for inclusion into the CSS 2.1 test suite. This brings the test suite much closer to the necessary breadth needed to ensure that web sites will interoperate. These tests are available on the IE Development Forum until they are fully reviewed by the working group and accepted into the official test suite.

I also want to thank everyone that provided great feedback on the tests we submitted back in March 2008. Based on the feedback on the W3C’s CSS 2.1 Working Group’s mailing list and my March IE Blog post on the subject, we made corrections and design changes to 28 of the 702 test cases we submitted in March. We also deleted 5 cases that became redundant through the other 28 changes. These updated tests are also available on the IE Development Forum until the W3C integrates them. It is this collaboration with the web development community and the W3C that will really make these web standards more reliable and able to create a more predictable web development experience.

This brings Microsoft’s contribution in this suite to 3221 test cases and the entire W3C CSS 2.1 test suite to 3708 test cases. We, the IE team, will continue to work closely with the CSS working group on these tests and listen to any feedback you provide.

In addition to the CSS 2.1 standard, IE8 is supporting the new Accessibility Rich Internet Applications (WAI – ARIA) draft standard in development by the W3C. It provides a way to create web sites that are accessible to people that need Assistive Technologies to help them live and work. We’re using some of the existing test suite to validate our implementation. We also just submitted our first tests to the working group for inclusion into the test suite. They are also available for download on the IE Development Forum until they get included into the W3C test suite. As with the CSS suite, we will continue to work closely with the WAI – ARIA group.

Thanks,

Jason Upton
Test Manager
Internet Explorer

Comments (109)

  1. Brad B. says:

    "The IE team has been actively working on Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2."

    So do you have an estimate for release better than "soon" or "in August"?

    Is it still coming in August?

    Inquiring minds want to know! :)

  2. Ted says:

    There are twelve days left in August… I’m sure they’re busy…

  3. betafreak says:

    i’m going to slit my rists if beta2 dosen’t come soon.

  4. Michael says:

    Microsoft I hope IE8 Beta 2 is going to be worth the wait!!!

    Don’t let us down!

  5. Brianary says:

    I’m a little worried about the restrictions I’ve heard about in IE8’s implementation of data: URLs.

    Are they really ONLY allowed for image URLs in CSS?

    Will data: URLs in HTML/XML be ignored?

    That would be a big disappointment.

  6. Jason,

    This one is incorrect

    samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_6/Rules/HTML-attribute-001.htm

    for many reasons. align attribute for caption is deprecated. CSS 2.1 only has top, bottom and inherit for caption-side. And the markup code is invalid.

    Regards, Gérard

  7. 8675309 says:

    now that the win dev team is open to suggestions why dont they make a better download manager for win. 7

  8. Nektar says:

    I looked at the tests. Please improve viewing of the source code of each test. Currently, for each test I have to go to View > Source to look at the CSS/HTML that makes up the test. Please, above the test results in the browser, provide an edit box containing the test’s source code so that we can browse it without having to visit the IE menu every time which extremely time consuming if you have to do it for thousands of tests. Thanks.

  9. Rita Mae says:

    I test my sites on browsershots.org and IE8 has consistently broken tables leaving gaps. IE8 is the ONLY browser that does this. Please see browsershots.org for a complete list of browsers.

  10. Thomas Tallyce says:

    This is excellent work – thousands of tests are a real indication of a hopefully solid browser release. Thank you for making these public.

  11. Sprio says:

    IE8 beta 2 for the next week ? I hope for that !

  12. Mephiles says:

    I’m glad to see Microsoft are doing all of these to help us see that they care about web standards now.

    I can’t wait to see IE8’s new GUI. I here that it will be better.

  13. Jerry Mead says:

    Jason, lots of hard work evident there! Well done.

  14. Daniel says:

    That’s sweet!

    Reading the testcase titles, one can almost feel Beta 2. I mean, some seem to indicate a known bug was fixed.

    Hm, that’s evil. Last time Beta was released before the testcases were! But today’s wednesday, so I’m still feeling ok.

    Hope to hear from you again soon.

  15. Mike Dimmick says:

    @Gérard:

    Deprecated:

    "A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by newer constructs. Deprecated elements are defined in the reference manual in appropriate locations, but are clearly marked as deprecated. Deprecated elements may become obsolete in future versions of HTML.

    "User agents should continue to support deprecated elements for reasons of backward compatibility."

    – from http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#deprecated.

    IE must continue to support elements that are deprecated, if not obsoleted, if the document type supports it (HTML 4.01 Transitional does, Strict does not). The declared XHTML 1.1 inherits HTML 4.01 Strict.

    Secondly, the purpose of the test is to ensure that the HTML ‘align’ attribute is being overridden by CSS and in that regard is a suitable test. It could be fixed easily by changing <caption> to <tr><td>. The document does not validate only because of the deprecated attribute (not in HTML 4.01 Strict) and because <table> should have at least one <tr>, and <tr> at least one <th> or <td>.

  16. This brings Microsoft&#8217;s contribution in this suite to 3221 test cases and the entire W3C CSS 2.1 test suite to 3708 test cases. We, the IE team, will continue to work closely with the CSS working group on these tests and listen to any feedback y

  17. add says:

    where Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2????

  18. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Brianary: No, DataURIs may be used for more than just images in CSS files, although from a performance perspective, that’s pretty much the only place their use makes sense.

    See

    http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/ie8whitepapers/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=575 for an explanation of the actual enforced restrictions on DataURIs; the restrictions are primarily for security reasons.

  19. Bob Holt says:

    While I applaud the IE team for bringing IE8 into better compliance with the CSS 2.1 spec, I have to wonder at the lack of attention to CSS 3.0. Although IE8 will provide limited support for CSS 3, I’m concerned by the lack of specific features such as CSS 3 pseudo-classes and RGBA color notation (see CSS Compatibility and Internet Explorer – http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc351024(VS.85).aspx)

    Firefox, Opera, and Safari continue to provide increased CSS 3 support with each new version and interstitial release. Based on the previous IE release model, I don’t expect to see  significant 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, etc. releases, so getting as much CSS 3 support into the IE8 release now would set the stage for the next few years.

  20. Mike says:

    Great work to the team!

    Not the IE team but the team at mozilla involved in creating a plugin so canvas is supported in IE.

    http://digg.com/software/Mozilla_Drags_IE_Into_The_Future_With_Canvas_Element_Plugin

    far from ideal but I guess it stops you guys from continuing to hold back the web. Just how many requests did you get for CANVAS and SVG support?

  21. Jim says:

    @Mike: I’m guessing thousands of requests, but why would they support SVG and CANVAS properly, when they can push SilverSlieght, VML and other proprietary stuff?

    I’ve been playing with the test suite… but I was wondering if you had published stats on IE’s coverage?

    e.g. I viewed many of the tests in IE6…  lots of fails… in IE7 (ever so slightly less fails)… and IE8Beta1 (well, I’m running batches of tests by chapter… and certain chapters crash IE8Beta1).

    Will you be publishing how many tests IE8Beta2 (or whatever you have internally) pass?

    How about IE8Beta1?

    thanks!

  22. Ted says:

    the "mozilla canvas" add-on isn’t done, is not signed, is not available for download, has scary security implications, provides incomplete support for a non-accepted RFC, and uses functionality for which Apple has filed patents.  See http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010129.html

    epic fail.

  23. Stifu says:

    Ted: yeah, because the company who doesn’t deign to implement such features in the first place (or at least the finished ones) isn’t the one "epic failing".

  24. Rex says:

    @Ted  Fist! Epic Fail goes to IE for not supporting SVG natively. 2nd goes to IE for not supporting CANVAS natively.

    Shouts go to Mozilla for picking up the slack, implementing both natively, AND fixing CANVAS support for IE (because the rest of us aren’t waiting till 2015 to use technology.

    Please get off your MSFT high horse and at least give some credit for a team that makes an effort!

    We have yet to see any written confirmation from MSFT that they will *ever* support HTML5, CSS3, SVG, or CANVAS.

    And as for your "isn’t signed" comment, signing the add-on doesn’t prove that it won’t violate your privacy, or do "evil" things.  All it does it provide a "higher" level of comfort that the company/person you believe wrote this app, actually wrote it.

    We all run hundreds of un-signed add-ons (for IE, Firefox, etc.) without any issues. Your comments seem as FUD’y as "Mr. MB’s" Open So<del>urce</del><ins>ars</ins> comments.

  25. Morten says:

    "IE8 is supporting the new Accessibility Rich Internet Applications (WAI – ARIA) draft standard in development by the W3C."

    So you are willing to implement this unfinished standard into IE8, but you are not willing to implement the CSS3 property "opacity" under the argument that the standard is not complete, even though there is consensus on this property? WTF!

  26. Ted says:

    what part of "Apple holds a patent on CANVAS" do you fools not understand?

  27. Ted_the_EPIC_FAIL says:

    Ted, ever the Microsoft and IE asskisser. You’re the EPIC FAIL, all of your comments posting FUD or useless info. But one thing you’re terrible at is being a shill, that’s for sure. How much does Microsoft pay into your bank account despite doing such a lousy job as a shill?

    Get this through your thick skull, no one cares about your opinion, people only want to know the facts of what MS is gonna fix in their crappy, broken, non compliant, dinosaur age browser. Don’t try to force whatever agenda you have here.

  28. Jean-Philippe says:

    Well, it’s great to see this effort towards standardization coming from Microsoft. Everybody’s benefiting from that.

  29. Daniel says:

    Hey Ted, while Apple did indeed try to abuse their original patents, that no longer a problem.

    Everyone’s granted a free license for canvas. Besides, the W3C working drafts including canvas got their own patent policy which is royalty free.

  30. Ted says:

    you’re all right, I definitely have FUD about the canvas addon.

    Fear- that it’s going to introduce security holes and unanticipated problems.

    Uncertainty- that the code is even written by the person it claims to be, since there’s no digital signature to protect it.  Remember the open source distros that got rooted a while back and it took months to discover it?  Remember when the same thing happened to a Firefox language pack?  This is a real threat.

    Doubt- that such a project will ever get off the ground, since it seems like Canvas is pretty much a patent submarine waiting to surface.

    as for my agenda, my agenda is to try to enlighten some of you so that we can ask microsoft to fix the stuff that actually matters rather than getting sidetracked with their competitors publicity stunts.

  31. spike says:

    Morten :

    They implement an unfinished ACCESSIBILITY draft agains an mainly UNUSED finished standard to concentrate on USED CSS 2.1 and get it right.

  32. Ted says:

    daniel: Glad (but skeptical) to hear it.  Cite your sources, please?

  33. Daniel says:

    @Ted,

    First the HTML 5 draft by the WHATWG (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/) which states on its cover:

    "© Copyright 2004-2008 Apple Computer, Inc., Mozilla Foundation, and Opera Software ASA.

    You are granted a license to use, reproduce and create derivative works of this document."

    I don’t know where the W3C documents are, but the HTML Charter of March 2008 (http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter#patentpolicy) states:

    "This Working Group operates under the W3C Patent Policy (5 February 2004 Version). To promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented, according to this policy, on a Royalty-Free basis."

    The publication of Working Drafts, AFAIK, also pushes the Companies to talk about patent issues, yet Apple did not react. I think the conclusion is that canvas is no longer a problem patent wise.

  34. Morten says:

    Spike: Are you claiming that the css opacity is an unused property? Do you really think the filter is the way to go for opacity? (last I heard from the IE team was that they are likely going to introduce a third and new proprietary method for opacity, so not even filters will work!)

  35. To Jason Upton

    I have several issues and see several problems with the current test suite.

    1- Why choose XHMTL 1.1? Why was that necessary? For your information, XHTML 1.1 requires to be served as application/xhtml+xml, not as text/html like it is right now. So, the whole testsuite of testcases may be valid but it is not compliant with the mentioned W3C specification; it clearly goes against W3C guidelines.

    2- Why so many javascript functions and handlers in such CSS test suite? If Microsoft consults all of the public CSS test suites available on the web (not just W3C but Eric Meyer’s, Ian "Hixie" Hickson’s and others), Microsoft will see that there is no need, no justification for depending on script, any script language when doing CSS tests. All of the other known CSS test suites do not, did not rely on javascript support.

    var arrDocs is a single javascript array variable that is 167504 bytes long in size: does that make sense??

    Here’s an nth good example, excellent illustration where IE has been so much lagging with W3C web standards over the years that if it had implemented a <link>-ed site navigation toolbar (in, say, IE 7 or IE 8 beta 1), all of the intra-testsuite navigability would have been *elegantly* solved without javascript.

    3- Testcases are good, useful, helpful if they can spot, enlighten a bug in the implementation. Regardless of number of testcases, validity, compliance of testcases, etc.

    The testsuite, despite its number of tests, is not even exhaustive either. E.g. regarding invalid characters in font-family names which would require to be escaped, only the exclamation mark has been tested in one testcase and in only one situation. So, it may turn out that IE 8 beta 1 passes such test … but the reality is that it fails with font-family names with parentheses.

    I could say the same with quite a few other CSS properties being tested. Visit my webpage and see tests #37, #38, #133, #134, #141, #143 for starters. They show bugs, incorrect parsing or implementation in IE 8 beta 1 which were not (and would not be) revealed by any current tests in that 3221 testcases testsuite.

    4- To navigate to the previous or next test, the webpage uses a submit button when it should be a push button, a command button. That is what happens when failing to specify the type of HTML button as the default type is submit, not button.

    5-

    {

    When the document contains inline script (event handler) attributes, then the following line should be added immediately after the title element in the markup:

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">

    }

    w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/guidelines.html#content-style-type

    {

    The default scripting language

    (…)

    Documents that do not specify default scripting language information and that contain elements that specify an intrinsic event script are incorrect.

    }

    w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#default-script

    Regards, Gérard

  36. Daniel says:

    @Gérard Talbot:

    It’s great that you collect so many bugs, but don’t you think reporting them all in the bug database would make much more sense than reporting them in the overpostes comment section of a blogpost?

    Of course, the questions about the testcase sumission still fit here.

  37. Ted says:

    "The publication of Working Drafts, AFAIK, also pushes the Companies to talk about patent issues, yet Apple did not react."

    …but Apple DID act.  They specifically claimed IP in a public forum for the working group, as per the url sent previously.

    now, Apple seems to currently be open to RF licensing (http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/status#current-disclosures) but as I read the Patent Policy, they can revoke that promise at any point up to 90 days after the spec becomes a recommendation.  So, we have quite a while left before we know whether or not Canvas is encumbered.

  38. Daniel says:

    Oh, I need to take a closer look into this.

    Though I doubt, Apple will really encumber canvas as this would really hurt the companie’s image.

  39. 8675309 says:

    what i dont like is how silver lights built-in support for canvas sucks because the author of the content or site has to write in support for silver light canvas to work

  40. 8675309 says:

    but then again the google canvas has the same downfall. as for mozzerella foundations project i could not find any ActiveX pluging anywheere for it. so it looks like the projects a flop!

  41. Ted_the_EPIC_FAIL says:

    Publicity stunts? It’s fixing Microsoft’s lazy developers who care more about Silverlight(Dean, GM of IE Team even had the gall to say at MIX 08 they were working on Silverlight all those years between IE6 and IE7.) So they can’t vendor lock-in anymore HTML because web developers are not gonna take it anymore, lets try Silverlight as the new way of proprietary vendor lock-in which is gonna fail just as miserably.

    Submarine patents? You do know that Apple doesn’t want to be locked in to Flash or Silverlight, undermining Canvas standard will hurt them far more than trying to enforce the so called "patents". Again, clueless people shouldn’t try and post useless FUD, it shows how ignorant you are.

    But do continue, we need someone or a shill to kiss up to Microsoft’s ass for amusement.

  42. Ted says:

    >"Dean, GM of IE Team even had the gall"

    Lie.

    >"Canvas standard will hurt them far more than trying to enforce the so called "patents""

    Your use of the phrasing "so called "patents"" suggests that you know very little about either the legal system or the business world.

  43. sickofit says:

    @Ted_the_EPIC_FAIL

    Go complain on /. with all your buddies instead of wasting space here with your vitriol

  44. Whatever the case, Mozilla is sort of wasting their time, seeing as IE would have gotten Canvas support in a few years.

    I cannot wait to see IE8; it is sort of like the runner who was last until the home-stretch when he put on the speed. He hasn’t caught the other players quite yet, but he will soon. If not IE8, IE9 will be one hum-dinger of a browser. Just wait and see!

  45. Ted_the_EPIC_FAIL says:

    Just go and watch the video from MIX08, Dean said that, Ted. But since you’re such an EPIC FAIL, you’ll try to deny that Dean ever said that eventhough it’s on video as good evidence. You’re the one that doesn’t understand anything about legal or business practices.

    Sickofit, STFU. Your worthless comments without any facts is not appreciated. Why don’t you go to Slashdot instead, since you seem to fit there better with your useless vitriol?

  46. Canvas says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)

    "Apple later disclosed the patents under the W3C’s royalty-free patent licensing terms[8]."

    Looks like Ted just made a fool of himself, no doubt not doing any proper research.

  47. Open Web Standards says:

    Microsoft doesn’t even support CSS3, SVG and other standards in IE8, what makes anyone think they’ll catch up to Firefox or other web browsers or be a hum-dinger of a browser?

    Inferior Trident engine and lazy devs who didn’t do any work between 2001 to 2006 is not gonna make a browser any good.

  48. sanyodenki says:

    IE8 Beta 2 is about to come? I am waiting for that.And thanks a bunch to you all~ .Don’t let us down. Come on !!!

  49. Nikhil says:

    Hii.. According to the one of the website MS is going to release IE8 Beta2 on Aug 28 and Final version on Nov 2008.

    So.. only 7 days to go..

  50. Nikhil says:

    Hii.. According to the one of the website MS is going to release IE8 Beta2 on Aug 28 and Final version on Nov 2008.

    folks who already have IE 8 Beta 1 installed will get Beta 2 via Automatic Updates

    So.. only 7 days to go..

  51. Ted says:

    <<no doubt not doing any proper research.>>

    Apparently, you didn’t even bother to read the comment stream here.  

    Even high schoolers are supposed to know that Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source, and the citated source [8] on Wikipedia reveals the dubious nature of the statement that precedes it.  

    If you read the W3C patent rules, only once 90 days have passed since a standard becomes a REC are the patent rights truly granted on a RF basis.

    <<Just go and watch the video from MIX08>>

    Cite your sources. URL and time offset, please?

  52. Daniel says:

    @Nikhil:

    Who said that? And where? Pleas tell me the source!

    I’m so sad, I hoped IE8b2 would be released this week…

    Wish they’d written September instead and released it in the first week of that month. Now I’ve had a sad August.

  53. Nikhil says:

    @Daniel

    chk the link..

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1543

    But y u sad if it Release on late August..

    as MS already told that IE8 Beta2 will be drop by the end of August..

  54. sickofit says:

    @Ted_the_EPIC_FAIL

    Thank you for your insight.

  55. Nikhil says:

    One of the most interesting feature that didn’t quite make it into the final release of Firefox 3 is “Private Browsing”, a.k.a. porn mode. The only other browser with this feature built-in today is Safari (another reason to try it in case you haven’t), however, Microsoft may also be building a similar feature into Internet Explorer 8 if two trademark filings are any indications.

    On July 30th, Microsoft filed two trademarks for:

    CLEARTRACKS-IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for accessing and using the Internet and the world wide web; and computer programs for deleting search history after accessing websites

    INPRIVATE-

    IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer programs for accessing and using the Internet and the world wide web; computer programs for disabling the history and file caching features of a web browser; and computer software for notifying a user of a web browser when others are tracking web use and for controlling the information others can access about such use

  56. Daniel says:

    @Nikhil:

    Thanky for the Link, I didn’t know of that article.

    I’m a bit sad or disappointed because I’m currently on vacation. It wasn’t intended to cross the release of IE8b2, but when I found out I thought that this could be a chance to do some hitting on the software. I’d like to improve the CSS support as much as possible.

  57. Nikhil says:

    @Daniel

    I m Hoping alots of features, improvment & great UI. that mke IE8 a great browser ever seen..

    I mke my finger cross…

  58. austin cheney says:

    @Bob Holt:  I believe the reason for limited CSS3 support is that IE8 intends to fully master accurate rendering of CSS2.1 first.  This is no small task.  Firefox 2, for example, came out well before IE7 and had vastly superior CSS2.1 rendering compared to IE6 offering many more features.  Dispite that superiority the FF2 rendering of CSS2.1 was not complete.  FF2 contained a very serious float wrap bug and failed to implement display:inline-block.  Even with the many more obvious failings of IE6 it did, at least, get those correct.

    In other words FF3 and Opera are attempting to offer 95-98% accuracy for CSS2.1 and 30%+ CSS3 while IE8 intends to offer 100% CSS2.1 and only 10% CSS3.  I don’t know if that will happen, but it seems while others are offering a wider variety of CSS features IE8 wishes to become the beacon by which all things CSS2.1 specific are measured.

  59. Daniel says:

    @austin cheney:

    Actually, Mozilla and Opera also aim for 100% CSS 2.1 and every release improves this. For example, Mozilla’s CSS 2.1 support currently only lacks the display:run-in property and some @page rules. I guess they’ll finish CSS 2.1 soon.

    But yeah, Microsoft promised 100% CSS 2.1 support for IE8 and looking how far they already are, I don’t doubt they can make it. After all, MS is way bigger than any other browser vendor.

    And the released testcases indicate some details they’ve looked into.

  60. Stifu says:

    austin cheney: Firefox 2 was actually released just after IE7, but maybe you were confused with alpha/beta versions.

  61. Mitch 74 says:

    Oy, there…

    That Microsoft submitted a bunch of test cases is good. Great, even. Problem is, they need review, as Gérard pointed out:

    – use of XHTML 1.1 with text/html MIMEtype (explicitly set as ‘incorrect’ by W3C)

    – faulty HTML markup may cause varying results in different browsers

    – the cases themselves could have been created in a way that is easier to use.

    Gérard has kept his database up to date for years now, and has advertised it on this blog ever since IE7 beta 1 came out. The fact that the IE team doesn’t make use of it his their fault.

    In fact, that’s where tests like Acid1/2/3 are interesting: they hit where it hurts, where usage has shown where browsers not only contradicted each others, but also went against the standard – and in some cases, where the standard was incoherent.

    About the ‘canvas’ patent: true, it’s not fully resolved. FUD-provoking though, I don’t think so:

    – CANVAS is supported in Safari

    – Safari uses Webkit

    – Webkit is under the Lesser GPL 2.1, which includes a provision about patents.

    In short, AT THE VERY LEAST LGPL-compatible softwares may implement canvas without fear of running afoul of the Adobe patent; as such, whoever develops an LGPL (or, as is the case, MPL) plugin for canvas support in IE has it well covered.

    Since the LGPL is a bit more lax with software distribution in binary form (if an unmodified library is the one being distributed, no source is required, only a copyright notice) and doesn’t enforce license propagation as much, it would be possible for Microsoft to build a canvas plugin based off Webkit’s code for canvas, distribute it with IE as a compiled library, as long as that plugin sources are available somewhere they’d be both covered by the Adobe patent and free to distribute the plugin.

    @Stifu: Firefox 2.0 was released after IE7, true; but Firefox 1.5 had pretty much the same engine and several of Fx2.0’s features were already present.

    @Daniel: supporting CSS features is one thing; supporting them correctly is another. For example, IE7 didn’t add THAT much over IE6 (selectors, mainly); but what it prominently brought was bugfixes.

    Let’s just hope IE 8 won’t need IE 9 to correct as many bugs as IE 7 did to 6…

  62. Xavier says:

    Ok so August 28th it is.

    Anyone want to take bets on this being the "Layout Complete" release?

    I vote yes.

    This really sucks though because if it is it means that IE8 never got properly tested by the community due to huge rendering issues in Beta 1  Which in turn means that IE8 Beta 2 & therefore RTM will suffer with plenty of findable/fixable rendering bugs that could have been caught if there were better Beta releases.

    I hope Beta2 isn’t the lock-down version but I am far from that optimistic.

  63. Jason says:

    WEB STANDARDS should be your number one priority here. Stop worrying about adding all these new features without first developing the core function a browser, which is to display a site properly based on the standards everyone agrees upon. You have certainly made progress in this field, but not nearly enough and, frankly, I’m tired of it. It is no longer a joke to say "oh, that’s just IE for you." You guys have to step up.

  64. Daniel says:

    @Stifu:

    You’re right, I though I don’t have to mention it speparately.

    @Xavier: Even if Beta 2 will be declared "layout complete" bugfixes are still possible.

    IE7’s layout complete Beta was way more buggy than the RTM version. So I think when B2 is release we should test as much as possible to ensure it’ll really have a great CSS 2.1 support!

  65. austin cheney says:

    @Daniel

    Hoping for 100% CSS2.1 is not the same as making it a mandatory development priority.  FF and Opera have always striven to achieve superior and wider CSS implementation, but that does not directly infer a decision to apply 100% CSS2.1 rendering to the defined standards.  This is the difference I must not have made clear previously.

  66. Daniel says:

    @austin cheney:

    Yeah, that’s the difference, I see.

    However, the others aren’t just hoping. 100% CSS 2.1 is great for them as well^^

  67. kalem13 says:

    Well, I’m looking forward to this Beta! Having to work daily with IE, it is sure good to know standards supports has been greatly improved. I sure hope more people could juste let IE6 go away and switch to another browser.

  68. 8675309 says:

    all the people say ie 8 beta 1 will be updated automaticlly are wrong because when i tested ie7 on xp the made us remove the beta & run win update to get the RTM build

  69. 8675309 says:

    as many people know ms alot of times now delays releasing things to thier downloads server on time

  70. Daniel says:

    @8675309

    T’was two years ago, probably they’ve learned a bit how to do a good release? 😉

  71. 8675309 says:

    what about xp/vista SP’s beta’s

  72. Travis says:

    will ie8 beta 2 be released on or before august 28th, that was promised by microsoft???

  73. meggs says:

    do microsoft know that there is already a newer version of css going to be released? i am not sure. are firefox 3 and safari3.1 in the future or is the internet explorer 8 in the past?

  74. Ted says:

    travis: MS promised "sometime in August."  

    meggs: the CSS 3.0 proposal isn’t done yet, and no one has implemented it fully, as that’s not even possible yet.  As Daniel observes above, FF doesn’t even have full CSS2.1 yet.

  75. Flug USA says:

    @meggs. I wouldn´t say that IE 8 is in the past, it´s just a different approach and regarding to CSS 2.1 IE is even more than a step ahead, so it looks like.

    ———————————-

    I can´t wait for the new beta release as well, since I have to get familiar with it. But since it´s still beta there will be some scratching the surface, only. It comes to a showdown and when IE 8 alpha (I am consciously not saying stable;)) will be released and then will see where FF stands. Anyway, for webprogramming you have to deal with all browsers.

  76. Travis says:

    "Microsoft is preparing to make Internet Explorer 8 Beta 2 available for download by August 28."

    http://www.ditii.com/2008/08/20/ie8-beta-2-by-august-28-and-ie8-final-in-nov-08/

  77. me says:

    maybe a bit off topic, but interresting in testing selectors in IE8:

    http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/

  78. Jeremy W. says:

    Thanks me!

    Just ran this test in a set of browsers:

    http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/

    Mozilla Firefox 3.01 (Win):

    ———————————–

    From the 43 selectors 36 have passed, 0 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 373 out of 578 tests)

    ———————————–

    IE7:

    ———————————–

    From the 43 selectors 13 have passed, 4 are buggy and 26 are unsupported (Passed 329 out of 578 tests)

    ———————————–

    Safari (Win 3.1) [[PERFECTLY AWESOME!]]:

    ———————————–

    From the 43 selectors 43 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 578 out of 578 tests)

    ———————————–

    Opera 9.52 [[PERFECTLY AWESOME!]]:

    ———————————–

    From the 43 selectors 43 have passed, 0 are buggy and 0 are unsupported (Passed 578 out of 578 tests)

    ———————————–

    IE 8 Beta 1:

    ———————————–

    Crashes… I get approx. 25 selectors tested, 13 have passed, 4 are buggy and 8 are unsupported(Passed 133 out of 150 tests) before it crashes.

    ———————————–

    Looks like IE has a long way to go to catch up, but I’m sure that Beta 3 will be a big improvement (and hopefully less crash-prone)

  79. Stifu says:

    Jeremy W: FYI, Firefox 3.1 dev builds also pass this test perfectly.

  80. Stifu says:

    PS: IE8 Beta 1 results, without crashing (tested using IETester on Vista)

    From the 43 selectors 14 have passed, 4 are buggy and 25 are unsupported (Passed 335 out of 578 tests)

  81. Tino says:

    Where is IE8 beta2?

    I want to download it.

  82. Daniel says:

    Doesn’t crash here either, but I wouldn’t care to report it. B1 is half a year old, and B2 is almost there.

    I’ll start testing again when B2 is available.

  83. Please people, while it’s understandable that you want support for new features like CSS3 and HTML5, just remember that they’re not standards yet.  Whether or not Microsoft supports them is their choice until they become standards.  So don’t give them grief for it.  Just as Mozilla dn Opera and Apple choose to support some features of draft standards, so too does Microsoft have that right.  

  84. 8675309 says:

    i agree since ms did write in 802.11n draft support for xp/vista & there server versions

  85. 8675309 says:

    while were waiting for them to release v2 of the beta the wheel in the sky keeps on turning!

  86. hAl says:

    @Mitch 74

    If you attach patent rights license to code it will only apply if the code containing the patented technology is used unchanged.

    So if some technology patent is transferred using a OSS license on code it does not mean that it releases the patent in general.

  87. pkubaj says:

    @Jeremy W.

    IE8B1 has just finished css test.

    Results:

    From the 43 selectors 14 have passed, 4 are buggy and 25 are unsupported (Passed 335 out of 578 tests)

    4 points better than IE7.

  88. Stifu says:

    pkubaj: I already pointed that out above, and also, 335-329 = 6 in my books, not 4. :p

  89. Garrett says:

    Jason  & IE Team,

    This deserves proper recognition.  

    I have a few small requests:

    1) Proper titles. For example, instead of:-

    "Chapter 4"

    – the following:-

    <a title=’Grammar and Parsing Rules’>4. Syntax and basic data types</a>

    – would be much easier to understand and would provide a much clearer outline of what is being tested.

    2) Not automated.The CSS tests require clicking through. They’re not automated.

    The only way I can think of automating tests would require an application to launch the browser, take snapshots, and communicate with a server program.

    3) Not enough edge cases. I’ve noticed that the BODY element’s display property doesn’t work right in IE8. Tests should test edge cases like these.

    4) Clearer results. I don’t mind viewing the source code, but I think the tests could be a lot more obvious as for PASS/FAIL result. If you’re creative, you can think of ways to craft tests with more apparent expected results.

    Finally, I have feedback for the larger picture of things. The CSS2.1 example/demo pages are useful, but only part of the picture.

    It would be a very good idea for Microsoft to continue in the spirit of these tests, and to make *automated* tests for Ecma-262r3, HTML 4.01, and w3c DOM (HTML, Events, et c). These are important standards that are partially implemented and buggy in MSIE. It would not be nearly as hard to develop an automated test runner for these standards.

    @mystere – I agree with you about not rushing to implement untested working drafts. I can see evidence of Microsoft implementing parts of CSSOM views, and parts HTML 5 which are questionable, at best. Rushing to implement poorly designed and changing features can be harmful to the web. Test cases can reveal design issues that the draft may not reveal, and should be an integral part of developing such standards before implementing them. Writing test cases for existing standards would seem to be at least as important.

    Garrett

  90. Brianary says:

    @EricLaw: Sure that the most obvious reason to use data: URLs for *performance*.

    There are other reasons to use data: URLs than performance, though. Other motivations include: as a fallback when other options are not available (comment attachments, blog post images without separate image hosting support, simple steganographic passing of data out of an oppressive government or corrupt agency to public forums), or as a way of serializing multi-file content into a single file ("Save as a complete HTML file").

    I’ll have to do some testing to see what happens with multipart compressed data and some other corner cases.

    Thanks for the link!

  91. Kevin says:

    One big question that I would love to be answered by the IE team – Why now? FF, Opera, and Safari have been supporting web standards for years and IE is just now taking them seriously? Microsoft is even a member of the W3C and has not cared about the standards they put out until now. Someone, I forgot who, in the IE team was even quoted after being asked, "what makes IE a great browser" as answering "we make the standards." So if IE was so set on making their own web standards, why the change?

  92. Town Idiot25 says:

    So is beta 2 gonna be really good enough to hold one off until the full comes out?

    My IE7 really acts up and I am waiting fo r IE8. But I want to know if I should wait for the full to come out.

  93. mocax says:

    one more week.

    five more working days.

    can microsoft deliver?

  94. jim says:

    Does anyone here exprience Google problem?

    I have is shopping cart on google search result.

  95. Kevin says:

    From my last comment:

    Note that I would really love to see IE finally be css compliant as I am a web developer. I would love to just tell people, "update to the newest version" instead of "we can’t do much about that" or thinking to myself, "I really don’t want to waste time recoding that in javascript (e.g. the :focus css pseudo class that IE7 doesn’t support). And if I do, what is the point in keeping :focus in my styles?"

    So I would love to see IE8 bring itself into full compliance…I just want to know why now?

    I just wanted to make that clear that I am not against Microsoft and in fact love their OS’s, Visual Studio.net, asp.net, vb.net (seriously one of my favorite programming languages), and other technologies and software they have made.

  96. Jason Upton [MSFT] says:

    @Gérard Talbot & @ Mitch 74

    I will answer some of your questions.  I’ve also asked Arron Eicholz to answer some as well as he’s more familiar with the details of specific cases.  Arron is Microsoft’s Junior Peer on the CSS 2.1 working group (http://csswg.inkedblade.net/test/css2.1/review).  I also have some questions for you.

    > 1- Why choose XHMTL 1.1? Why was that necessary?

    >- use of XHTML 1.1 with text/html MIMEtype (explicitly set as ‘incorrect’ by W3C)

    See this statement, “The baseline format for CSS2.1 tests is XHTML 1.1 in UTF-8.”  This is from the test suite test page requirement for submission to the W3C.  Here is the link:  http://csswg.inkedblade.net/test/css2.1/format

    >- faulty HTML markup may cause varying results in different browsers

    Yes, serving any pages as application/xhtml+xml may break some applications, which is why we used text/html.

    >- the cases themselves could have been created in a way that is easier to use

    The cases were written to be browser independent and something that can be automated with a test harness, like the one the working group is designing.  

    >2- Why so many javascript functions and handlers in such CSS test suite? … All of the other known CSS test suites do not, did not rely on javascript support.

    There are no jscript functions in the test suite itself only the harness used to drive them.  This is consistent with other test harnesses, including the one the Working group is considering.  Again, we’re trying to align as close as possible to the Working group’s guidelines here.

    >var arrDocs is a single javascript array variable that is 167504 bytes long in size: does that make sense??

    It is simple and straightforward but not necessarily elegant.  We erred on the side of simplicity vs. elegance in some cases.

    > Here’s an nth good example, …  all of the intra-testsuite navigability would have been *elegantly* solved without javascript.

    These tests needed to work with as many user agents as possible, not just those that supported specific features.

    > The testsuite, despite its number of tests, is not even exhaustive either…

    Correct.  Every test suite can always have more tests.  There is a balance between complete and necessary in every good test suite. I believe the CSS 2.1 suite needs more tests as well.  

    > Visit my webpage and see tests #37, #38…

    What’s the URL?

    > To navigate to the previous or next test, the webpage uses a submit button…

    Where are you looking?

    > When the document contains inline script (event handler) attributes…

    It might be a bug.  At which page are you looking?

  97. Mitch 74 says:

    @Jason Upton: thank you for your answer.

    Since the test cases must be submitted as XHTML 1.1, that also means that the files can’t bear the suffix .htm (nor .html for that matter) – they should at least be named .xhtml, and let the server deide on the mime type required (strictly speaking, providing an XHTML file also means enable application/xhtml+xml mime type; since most servers decide on the type to send from a file’s suffix, get ready to do a mass rename).

    Gérard’s URL is in his comment: click his name.

    Adding Jscript to the page to improve compatibility is superfluous, as a browser should be able to pass without any crutch (for example, adding document.createElement("abbr"); doesn’t make IE 6 really support ‘abbr’…); if you really want to provide test cases, those should be:

    – valid XHTML 1.1

    – semantically correct.

    However, I guess the test cited by Gérard refers to point 6.4.4 in the CSS 2.1 specification – in which case the test is basically correct. It is also true that the W3C doesn’t ask for a table to contain anything – a caption could be the only child.

  98. Michael says:

    Jason Upton, I hope you’re not the best MS can offer, as we’re all doomed if you can’t find Gerard’s website, given it’s linked to where his name is displayed and should be required reading for you.

  99. Michael says:

    Jason Upton, I hope you’re not the best MS can offer, as we’re all doomed if you can’t find Gerard’s website, given it’s linked to where his name is displayed and should be required reading for you.

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/19/more-tests-submitted-to-the-w3c-css-2-1-test-suite.aspx#8882089

  100. Andrew Powell says:

    I applaud the pace as which the IE team is playing catch-up. I’m simply hoping that with the massive amount of resources that MS has at their disposal, that there will come a time [again] when IE leads the pack in terms of implementation of specs, and is no longer the fat kid in gym class we all have to wait for to catch up.

  101. Imran Ahmed says:

    what’s microsofts answer to tracemonkey

  102. Not Ted The Epic Fail says:

    Re: Test Suites.

    Anyone that has ever written one should know that automation is key.

    The original set by Jason Upton I presume is just a draft set.  It would have been better to build the set with the automation built in, but let bygones be bygones.

    Since the test suite would suggest that Beta 2 has better support than Beta 1, can you indicate anything about Beta 2 in terms of what we can/should expect?

    Thanks.

  103. Chris says:

    @Andrew Powell

    What pace? Everyone else finished the 1 mile race in 5 mins, Microsoft has just finished the quarter mile in 20 days.

  104. @Jason Upton

    1-

    > "The baseline format for CSS2.1 tests is XHTML 1.1 in UTF-8."  This is from the test suite test page requirement for submission to the W3C.

    The CSS 2.1 Conformance Test Suite indicates

    XHTML 1.1

       XHTML 1.1 tests sent as application/xhtml+xml

    http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS2.1/current/

    If the Microsoft tests are adopted, their XHTML version will be served as application/xhtml+xml while an HTML 4 version of such tests will be served as text/html. As it is, the current 3221 tests are not served as application/xhtml+xml. We were right regarding such concern and in pointing out such issue.

    2-

    samples.msdn.microsoft.com/csstestpages/Chapter_6/Rules/HTML-attribute-001.htm

    should be fixed, corrected. Just changing <caption> to <tr><td> should be sufficient.

    3-

    >>- faulty HTML markup may cause varying results in different browsers

    > Yes, serving any pages as application/xhtml+xml may break some applications, which is why we used text/html.

    Why not fix faulty HTML markup??

    4-

    > These tests needed to work with as many user agents as possible, not just those that supported specific features.

    The CSS tests themselves should not depend on the support of specific browser features. Agreed.

    As far as I know, only Safari (among non-IE browsers) can not make use of a <link>-ed related Site Navigation toolbar. Anyway, whether a few, most or all browsers can make use of a <link>-based/related Site Navigation toolbar should not refrain an author from defining intra-site <link>s for navigation purposes. In a small|avg ordered set of inter-related webpages, <link>-ing webpages is generally useful, helpful, significantly relevant.

    w3.org/QA/Tips/use-links

    Microsoft could implement a Site Navigation toolbar (turn off, hidden by default or as an available add-on). I made such suggestion 3 years ago and I was not the only one proposing such feature.

    5-

    > What’s the URL? Where are you looking?

    At the test harness webpage.

    @ Mitch 74

    > the W3C doesn’t ask for a table to contain anything – a caption could be the only child.

    A table must include at least 1 <tr> … which must include at least 1 <td>:

    <!ELEMENT TABLE – –

        (CAPTION?, (COL*|COLGROUP*), THEAD?, TFOOT?, TBODY+)>

    <!ELEMENT TBODY    O O (TR)+           — table body –>

    etc

    Regards, Gérard

  105. @Garrett

    > to make *automated* tests for Ecma-262r3, HTML 4.01, and w3c DOM (HTML, Events, et c)

    Automated tests for HTML 4.01 is probably very difficult to do. Anyway, 3 tests sites on HTML 4.01 are already available:

    Ian Hixie HTML 4 tests

    hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/html/

    Robin Lionheart HTML 4 Conformance tests

    robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results

    Draft HTML 4 test suite

    w3.org/MarkUp/Test/HTML401/current/tests/index.html

    Automated tests for DOM 2 HTML are already available at

    w3.org/DOM/Test/#releases

    And acid3 test has several tests on DOM HTML.

    Regards, Gérard

  106. Mitch 74 says:

    @Gérard: OK, my bad, I’m not exactly good at reading XML entity declaration (is the ‘+’ marking that an element can be considered as present by default if not explicitly mentioned?).

    To sum it up: the test itself isn’t a bad idea (testing styles cascade) but its implementation is quirky – making it unreliable: it could be argued that an agent that gets a resource’s DOCTYPE which doesn’t match its MIME-type can’t respect its DTD, and can thus revert to its own internal DTD – where node parameters are considered as in-line styles with matching priority.

    As it stands, Gérard has a point:

    – the test can’t pass off as XHTML 1.1 because it is faulty (can’t validate against XHTML 1.1 DTD due to faulty TABLE node not having correct children)

    – the test isn’t valid because there’s no DTD defining the correct behavior.

    I’ll second Gérard’s advice: at least replace caption with tr + td. Removing Jscript and meta-tags would not hurt either. Navigation could be done from another page.

  107. standardsguy says:

    new features and submitting new tests are great, how about passing some first?  Acid3 status?

  108. Daniel says:

    @standardsguy:

    They pass Acid1 and 2 because they’ve worked on CSS 2.1 support, as said, they plan to support it 100%.

    Acid3 concentrates on JavaScript and the DOM, an area that the IE team only slightly improved in IE8. The big overhaul of this section is expected for IE 9.