Here is a link to The Web Standards Project's Acid2 Test for Browsers. It is used to determine a Browser's ability to render an html page according to the w3c Standards.

No surprise, but IE6 is the most horrendous rendering, Firefox and Netscape do 'okay', and Opera does the best.
Opera is actually fully compliant with the Standards, so for those of you who are concerned about standards compliance, get yourself a copy of Opera.

http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/

Firefox 3 passes the test as per the Opera browser, but FF3 is not available to the general public yet. Soon, I hope

seen this before, what i want to know is how badly IE7 does it, yes i said badly, not "well" or "good" and i did so for a reason. The results will be terrible, if i was a betting man id stake my life on it.

Anyone with IE7 feel free to check it out and let us know how dreadful it is

shame to see firefox do so badly but maybe, as you say, FF3 will be better, they just need one that is perfect one day.

This is what it looks under IE7



For my work, unfortunately, I have to use IE. My Windows CE.net was designed to utilize ActiveX to synchronize with my work database... I hate to install browser after browser.

My webdesigns are not this complicated where it needs to be Web Standard, thank goodness. They are just plain javascripts and php/html. Didn't Firefox just released version 2? I'm surprised FF is getting ready for version 3... such a fast version updates in short period of time.

So the curious point is what if it's not a browser translating what would be the standard but the standard revised according to a browser translation? Meaning, what if the standard is written towards more favored browser than the rest?

I almost made a assumption but I am glad I caught the were they said they error it on purpose. Now explain this this to me since I am rhetorically stupid on this.

If you going to error it on purpose then how is it really a test? As you can tell each browser errors it differently that I get, so am I to assume that this is the reason or is their something obvious that I am missing on this? OR just to show how bad it looks.

To me I think the only reason why Opera looks like is because they programed it like that, which means they are bias to the browsers they used.

EDIT: well after reading the how it's done still makes me wonder what they are leaving out in that code somewhere meh.

Yes i suppose it would make sense to revise the standards if not a single browser can meet them. And its possible they purposely made an error in the code but not being a standards compliant coder i wouldn't see it!

Not sure where IE7 gets the scroll bars from (i assume they are part of the page not something that was on the screen at the time you shot it)

but i did hear that in beta IE7 couldnt render msn.com properly so IE7 is still officially terrible with standards!

No error on my part when I viewed Acid Test 2 with my IE7. I did the double take as well but the iframe appears due to IE7 unable to digest the code properly.

I'm not sure if this is alright to release... but I couldn't wait until this became public. I talked to one guy at CES just now and he gave me the link to download FireFox V3.0 Alpha 2 Pre

Go nuts

Strange that the two main browsers anr't standards complaint. I would have though they could have got it right by now. Well, Mozilla seems to have got it right with Firefox 3 I might have to get myself a copy of the Firefox 3 beta, if only for looking how it does stuff different

Firefox 2 seems to render stuff very similar to Opera for most sites anyway, so it must be quite near compliance.

wow thats a great link thanx for sharing

To anyone wanting to get the install file: just go to the di