Mozilla Finishes First in ADC Mac Browser JavaScript TestsSunday February 23rd, 2003Frank D writes: "Apple Developer Connection has posted the results of JavaScript tests among the six major browsers for the Mac (Safari, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, iCab, Opera, and Omniweb). The tests conclude that Mozilla has the best overall script handling, while Safari comes in second (and OmniWeb in last place)." Mozilla scored 'perfect support' in all tests except one involving moving a DHTML layer, where it had minor problems. Mozilla was the only browser able to successfully import an XML document and display its data within a HTML page. just tried the Import XML test at http://developer.apple.com/internet/javascript/tests/import.html but it failed to generate anything using Mozilla 2003022304 on Win2k, anyone else has the issue ? JavaScript console shows: Error: xmlDoc.getElementsByTagName("apple")[0] has no properties Source File: http://developer.apple.com/internet/javascript/tests/import.html Line: 31 xmlDoc is only defined inside the importXML() function scope but being used from a different function..... Not a smart course of action. ;) Aren't javascript variables global unless otherwise specified (with the "var" statement)? I don't think that would be the error. #12 Re: Re: Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightlyby bzbarsky Monday February 24th, 2003 12:58 AM Hm.... that's a good point; I can't recall how exactly that's hacked in for backwards compat... Spot the error :) alert('Your browser doesn't support this script'); return This should be a combination of single and double quotes, that's why Mozilla fails, discovered it in 5 seconds by looking at the output of the javascript console. Should be: alert("Your browser doesn't support this script"); return I experience the same error on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 (thus *not* a nighly) It looks like their server's sending the wrong mime type. The apple.xml file that's being imported is identified as text/plain instead of text/xml. If you save both import.html and apple.xml and then try the test locally it will pass since it's now loaded as text/xml. At least it did for me using "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130". #26 Re: Re: xmlimport test doesn't work on nightlyby map_sort_map Wednesday February 26th, 2003 9:38 AM I don't know whether this makes a difference, but the apple.xml file is also missing the <?xml?> declaration. With the Phoenix Build 20030221 everything works as it should. Maybe this is Mozilla specific problem? Is Phoenix better than Mozilla? "With the Phoenix Build 20030221 everything works as it should. Maybe this is Mozilla specific problem?" Unlikely. That said, I can't reproduce the scrollbar problem described with Mozilla 1.3 Beta (the test was conducted with 1.2.1). Alex I assume this problem was fixed sometime between 1.2.1 and 1.3b, since the author of the article is using the former, and IME the latter works perfectly. Any problems that Mozilla has with this would exist in Phoenix as well. I wonder what Stevie has to say about this? Heh!! Heh!! GECKO RULES!! :-) Maybe you could take a more mature attitude. This is good news for gecko, but it doesn't mean Safari is awful. Your attempts at being funny don't work either. Safari coming second in this test is a very good result for such a new product. I say a very well earned Well Done! to all the KDE and Apple developers that made Safari possible! "Safari coming second in this test is a very good result for such a new product." Well, Safari may be new but the technologies they are using are anything but new. KHTML has been around for years and while I'm sure Apple's done a lot of work to get it working as well as it is today (especially, probably in the JS implementation,) it's certainly not "new". I think that I've seen KHTML development mailing list posts as old as 4 years and Konqueror (a shipping product based on those core technologies) has been going out to decent usersbase for at least a few years. --Asa Although Mozilla is definitely a better browser than IE, tests on that site were performed with IE 5.2 for Mac. I've tried the same tests with IE 6.0 SP1 on Win98 and all of them worked fine (there's not even the minor problem experienced with the "Moving a DHTML Layer" test). You missing the point. They were comparing Mac browsers, not Windows browsers, therefore IE 6 SP1 from Win98 is irrelevant to the discussion. Yes it was irrelevant to the discussion in the reference article, however, it is not irrelevant to this discussion about that article. I for one found it interesting and informative that IE 6 passed the JavaScript tests they used. Thats not to say that I actually like or use IE (except when I *have* to, because of site inadequacies or because the site requires NTLM authorization). However, I am happy to hear that at least the latest Windows version has improved the standards compliance. And we all know that it is likely that the mozilla problem will be fixed within a month, whereas a similar problem in IE (even the Windows version which gets far more love from MS than the Mac version) wouldn't be fixed for over a year, possibly longer. I still have to switch to IE to do my internet banking? |