The word “FAIL” should be only used for this kind of fail.
Html5 is the new craze in town. Even though the final draft is far from complete and the working specification is expected to reach W3C Candidate Recommendation in 2012, many aspects of the specifications are already stable and ready to be implementation. It it those stable specifications, which includes video, canvas, Geo-locations – to name a few – that everyone is gunning for. From Apple, who is embracing html5 video over flash; to Google who is slowly deploying html5 video to YouTube; Adobe who is adding Canvas importing option to CS5 and even Microsoft is trying to make Internet Explorer 9 a more html5 compliant browser.
As a matter of fact html5 is the one of the several selling points of IE9 (including faster JavaScript engine). So its deliciously ironic that both IE8 & 9 fails miserably on html5 test we conducted on the 5 common web browsers out there.
html5test.com is an online benchmark to test html5 compliancy of your browser. This benchmark is similar to Acid3 test which benchmark browser’s Web Standard Compliance and Sunspider which benchmark’s JavaScript performance. It is important to note that none of these benchmarks do a comprehensive benchmark of all available standards.
You can check out our JavaScript Benchmark we did earlier this year with the latest available browsers at that time. Opera surprised everyone developing the fastest JavaScript engine out there.
Benchmark done with latest public release of each browsers:
HTML 5 Test: Out of possible 160
Internet Explorer continues its tradition of having horrible scores on standard compliance benchmark. They even went as far as claiming that having a good score on Acid3 test is not important to them. It will be interesting to see what IE developers at MSFT have to say now that they are trying to make IE9 more html5 compliant. Will they just brush off this benchmark scores just like they did with Acid3 or will they resort to misinformation about other popular browsers like they did with Chrome and Firefox.
Knowing Microsoft’s history, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they spend more time spreading misinformation than actually innovating their product.
If you liked this article, please share it on del.icio.us, StumbleUpon or Digg. I’d appreciate it.
Loading ...
Comments:
04/12/2010
Wow, thats pretty good stuff dude.
Lou
http://www.whos-watching.es.tc
04/12/2010
Oddly enough, using Safari 4.05 (on 10.5 Leopard, not Snow Leopard, not a Webkit nightly build) I got a score of 122 : http://grab.by/3HRp
Curious what version of Safari was giving you a score of 113. Kudos to Google, though, Chrome is a great browser in its own right.
04/12/2010
Acid3 was more nit picky then the original Acid test(s). A lot of the features IE9 “fails” at are not used or relevant to any developer.
04/12/2010
Acid3 was more nit picky then the original Acid test(s). A lot of the features IE9 “fails” at are not used or relevant to any developer.
04/12/2010
The latest nightly build of webkit (Safari) has a score of 137 as well.
04/12/2010
Mitcz. It was on Safari 4.0.5 just like yours, it is possible that you might have installed webkit nightly build recently and forgot to remove it.
Scrrenshot: http://i.imgur.com/YVksW.png
04/12/2010
Mitcz. It was on Safari 4.0.5 just like yours, it is possible that you might have installed webkit nightly build recently and forgot to remove it.
Scrrenshot: http://i.imgur.com/YVksW.png
04/12/2010
Very cool! I would have thought Firefox would have been in second place.
04/12/2010
Weird. My build date is older (prob cause it's 10.5, not 10.6) : http://grab.by/3HTL
I wonder if Apple removed some HTML5 features for 10.6 that weren't quite polished
04/12/2010
You do realise that IE9 hasn't had any HTML5 features implementd yet? It's due to have them, yes, but they (As you could probably have worked out from the score when compared to IE8) are not in the current build.
Not that I disagree that IE is way behind the competition, and that it would be fair to point out that they need to fix implementation of the current HTML standard before adding the next to the mix (Most likely what they're doing, but I haven't seen an ACID3 or similar result to see if it's actually working) but you're testing for functionality in a build that doesn't even claim to have it.
Thats actually the kind of fail I personally would use the word “FAIL” for.
On a lighter note, way to go Chrome!!!
04/12/2010
You do realise that IE9 hasn't had any HTML5 features implementd yet? It's due to have them, yes, but they (As you could probably have worked out from the score when compared to IE8) are not in the current build.
Not that I disagree that IE is way behind the competition, and that it would be fair to point out that they need to fix implementation of the current HTML standard before adding the next to the mix (Most likely what they're doing, but I haven't seen an ACID3 or similar result to see if it's actually working) but you're testing for functionality in a build that doesn't even claim to have it.
Thats actually the kind of fail I personally would use the word “FAIL” for.
On a lighter note, way to go Chrome!!!
04/12/2010
You do realise that IE9 hasn't had any HTML5 features implementd yet? It's due to have them, yes, but they (As you could probably have worked out from the score when compared to IE8) are not in the current build.
Not that I disagree that IE is way behind the competition, and that it would be fair to point out that they need to fix implementation of the current HTML standard before adding the next to the mix (Most likely what they're doing, but I haven't seen an ACID3 or similar result to see if it's actually working) but you're testing for functionality in a build that doesn't even claim to have it.
Thats actually the kind of fail I personally would use the word “FAIL” for.
On a lighter note, way to go Chrome!!!
04/12/2010
You do realise that IE9 hasn't had any HTML5 features implementd yet? It's due to have them, yes, but they (As you could probably have worked out from the score when compared to IE8) are not in the current build.
Not that I disagree that IE is way behind the competition, and that it would be fair to point out that they need to fix implementation of the current HTML standard before adding the next to the mix (Most likely what they're doing, but I haven't seen an ACID3 or similar result to see if it's actually working) but you're testing for functionality in a build that doesn't even claim to have it.
Thats actually the kind of fail I personally would use the word “FAIL” for.
On a lighter note, way to go Chrome!!!
04/12/2010
You do realise that IE9 hasn't had any HTML5 features implementd yet? It's due to have them, yes, but they (As you could probably have worked out from the score when compared to IE8) are not in the current build.
Not that I disagree that IE is way behind the competition, and that it would be fair to point out that they need to fix implementation of the current HTML standard before adding the next to the mix (Most likely what they're doing, but I haven't seen an ACID3 or similar result to see if it's actually working) but you're testing for functionality in a build that doesn't even claim to have it.
Thats actually the kind of fail I personally would use the word “FAIL” for.
On a lighter note, way to go Chrome!!!
04/12/2010
You do realise that IE9 hasn't had any HTML5 features implementd yet? It's due to have them, yes, but they (As you could probably have worked out from the score when compared to IE8) are not in the current build.
Not that I disagree that IE is way behind the competition, and that it would be fair to point out that they need to fix implementation of the current HTML standard before adding the next to the mix (Most likely what they're doing, but I haven't seen an ACID3 or similar result to see if it's actually working) but you're testing for functionality in a build that doesn't even claim to have it.
Thats actually the kind of fail I personally would use the word “FAIL” for.
On a lighter note, way to go Chrome!!!
04/12/2010
Not only does IE9 have html5 features implemented, they are openly bragging about it. Check it out: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/
04/12/2010
Aer you like 12?
04/12/2010
Aer you like 12?
04/12/2010
Funny, MobileSafari on iPad scores better than Safari 4.0.5 on OS X (155 vs 113).
04/12/2010
The dev build of Chrome scores 142; if you're going to use the IE9 preview, the chrome dev build should be fair game.
04/12/2010
That test does not properly test video or audio. There is no codec requirement in the spec. Therefore most of what the video and audio section tests should be removed since they are not HTML5.
04/13/2010
Google rocks! End of story!
04/13/2010
Look who in the world gives a hoot about HTML 5. The new version of flash is out and all the issues are resolved. If you have an iPad, you cannot use flash or enjoy any of the adobe advanced features. That's the bottom line. And fool that thinks HTML 5 is going to be better is smoking the funny stuff.
04/13/2010
Strange, just 118 out of 160 for my Chrome 4.1.249.1045. I wonder what the variables are that cause these differences.
04/13/2010
Haha, I love it when the IE users explain that their browser just does what it’s supposed to do and nothing more.
C’mon son! And do you love it too when your wife just does what you told her to do?!
Anyway, my Safari 4.0.4 passes with 120 out of 160 points… so Safari/Webkit versions pass randomly different, eh?!
04/14/2010
Yar all friggin' noobs
04/15/2010
Add mobile browsers too :)
Opera: 14, Safari: 113.
Opera desktop: 38.
It's odd to compare same rendering engines. Chrome, Safari both use webkit, cutting edge versions will score higher.
05/07/2010
WebKit r58875 : 144/160 !!
06/07/2010
If you want to test even more at the same site, try beta.html5test.com.
07/08/2010
Add the Palm Pre Plus to your rating at 132 plus 5 bonus points. Impressive!
Leave a Reply