|
|
Posted by Bob on 05/18/06 03:40
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob
> <bob@bob.org>
> wrote
> on Tue, 16 May 2006 23:49:21 -0700
> <b6iu.nu2.17.1@news.alt.net>:
>> Using this page
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_%28DOM%29
>>
>> I made some rather unscientific computations of the levels of DOM
>> (Document Object Model), ie, Javascript + CSS, support for IE 6, Opera
>> 7, 8 and 9 and Firefox 1.5
>
> [comparisons snipped for brevity]
>
> Interesting stuff...more grist for the mill, of course. This might be
> good for a short WebPage.
>
> Do you have anything comparable for CSS1, CSS2, CSS2.1, and (if it's
> standard by now) CSS3 support?
Yes, I have something for CSS2, but I am not sure how comprehensive it
is. Here it is. A bit offtopic, cuz I was looking for a good Mac browser
for my brother:
http://macedition.com/cb/resources/macbrowsercsssupport.html
CSS2 implementation via October 2004 (first is worst, last is best):
Partial:
Safari 1.0 13
Mac IE 5.2 6
Mozilla 1.3 6
Icab 3.0 3
Opera 7 2
Quirky:
Safari 1.0 7
Mozilla 1.3 6
Mac IE 5.2 5
Icab 3.0 4
Opera 7 1
Buggy:
Safari 1.0 2
Mozilla 1.3 2
Icab 3.0 1
Not Implemented:
Mac IE 5.2 19
Safari 1.0 13
Mozilla 1.3 6
Opera 7 6
Icab 3.0 4
Totals (buggy, quirky, partial or not implemented):
Safari 1.0 37
Mac IE 5.2 30
Mozilla 1.3 14
Icab 3.0 12
Opera 7 9
Analysis: This analysis was outdated and is taken from a site about Mac
browsers dated October 2004. I am not sure to what extent the full spec
was being tested. Nevertheless, the results are still interesting. Opera
wins once again (though an older version, v7, was tested), then Icab 3.0
beta, which reportedly has a superb CSS implementation, then an older
Mozilla 1.3, then the now-discontinued by still widely-used Mac IE, then
the outdated Safari 1.0, which is also still widely used. Mac users are
urged to upgrade to Opera, Icab or Firefox/Mozilla and leave the older
Mac IE and older Safari behind. For Linux users, Opera and Moz once
again shine.
Method: Counting by hand, which may have caused errors.
>
> Also, is there something for Javascript?
You mean ECMAscript, right? That's usually what it is called in the
tests...DOM is basically CSS + Javascript, but I think you are looking
for pure Javascript.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|