The HTML5 test – How well does your browser support HTML5? | Hacker News Reader

The HTML5 test – How well does your browser support HTML5?

html5test.com

79 pointsuptown48 comments

Codec support isn't HTML5 support. Also, since when was MP3 audio/mpeg3 (which is tested)? The test should be for audio/mpeg. I know Chrome supports MP3.

That was an explicit choice: "In some cases the tests go beyond the specification." Given the current battle over codecs right now, I think this is a good choice.

That doesn't change the fact that the correct MIME type of mp3 _IS_ audio/mpeg, not audio/mpeg3. It is a defect to test for audio/mpeg3.

I don't agree with the video ratings - codec support isn't defined in the HTML5 specification. It's not really fair to give a rating based on unspecified decisions.

There's still a big debate about who's wrong and right, why should this test get involved? Surely some people will just see that Chrome gets 30/30 and think that Firefox/Safari are thus inferior.

Internet Explorer 8: 19/160

Same with the Platform Preview 9.00.7745.6019

It'd be more useful to have this list for all browsers, rather than just the one you happen to be using.

Table of overall scores for different browsers: http://rakaz.nl/2010/03/the-html5-test.html

I love the scores posted, I also love that I don't see any above me (Chrome 5.0.371.0) (yet), but I'd like to see a bit of a better breakdown. Anyone know of some info on some of the conflicts, like I'm missing a few in User Interaction, but I don't know who isn't. Or other html5 statistics sites, since the topic is a pretty common trend right now.

Edit: (Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(H... in case its useful to anyone)

I agree on the fact that there should be some differentiation between current html5 and proposed, (and that this site is hilarious: http://isgeolocationpartofhtml5.com/), as well as some of the downfalls of scoring codec support that the author has mentioned, I think I like the out of 155 idea where chrome can go above it.

This test seems kind of silly because it's testing things that aren't even close to becoming standards. Take Web SQL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/

The current version this test is based off, was put up this month by Google. Just a few months ago, SQL wasn't even in a draft document.

Personally, I think it's destructive to put tests up on drafts that are so highly volatile. The biggest CSS bug in IE6 was because the initial definition of the box model was ambiguous about measuring width vs padding.

Where are WebSockets?

Isn't WebKit the only engine to support them now, and isn't in not formalized yet? But I think KAAZING would make support easily feasible without direct built in support so I'm not too concerned with including it in the score.

NCSA Mosaic 2.7b6: None existant

WebKit nightly r57408: 137/160

r56990 — 143

How does that work? It went backwards? And WebKit in what browser?

Not sure, but if those are SVN revisions they could be on different branches?

WebKit nightlies: http://nightly.webkit.org/

And they probably enabled or disabled some features, based on what they're working on.

For awhile (or, a few days, at least), Safari release was faster than WebKit nightlies on SunSpider, since they were working on strings in SFX (or something like that. Point I'm making is, release was faster and the slowdown was in the strings test).

N900 default browser: 55

I'm pretty surprised at that. I expected higher due to it's Firefox roots.

I thought I will get a zero. But this site doesn't work in Lynx.

http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php

The tests for "section", "nav", "article", etc. fail in Firefox because it report them as "HTMLUnknownElement" not because they can't be really used and styled like any other element.

wow, chrome on linux scores 137. Higher than the latest firefox!

Interesting. Chrome 4.1 (stable) on Windows scores 118.

Current chrome-unstable (5.0.371.0dev) on Linux scores 142.

H.264 codec support is NOT part of HTML5.

Safari on iPod Touch (3.1.3 OS): 113

iPhone is the same, not surprisingly.

Same in Safari 4.0.5 on SL

Android (Nexus One): 118

This proves HTML5 has a very long ways to go before replacing all 3rd party plugins.

OmniWeb 5.10.2 sneaky peek (v622.11 r128512): 113 (not in the rakaz.nl list)

Whatever version of Iron that I'm using on Linux: 118.

IPad Safari: 115

142/160 Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev on OSX

Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Chrome 5.0.342.7 beta: 137/160

Webkit Nightly: 133/160

Firefox nightly: 102

Opera 10.51: 102

Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Latest, ie Gecko/20100410 Minefield/3.7a5pre 20100410 (well almost latest): 102

w3m and links: Des not run.

I got 138 with Epiphany.

Safari 4.0.5: 115/160

Other OS X alternatives (on OS X 10.5):

Opera 10.10: 38/160

Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Chrome 5.0.342: 137/160

Midori 0.1.9

117/160

Safari 4.0.5 / OS X 10.6.3/x86 - 120/160.

I believe various configuration settings might affect the score.

Chrome 5.0.342.9 beta: 137/160

Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev: 142/160

Reply on news.ycombinator.com