Opera Now Most Compliant Browser, According to WebReview
Friday March 26th, 1999
CNet reports that WebReview's latest assessment of CSS1 compliance in release browsers puts Opera on top with 78%, followed by IE4 at 70.2% and Nav4 at 38.8%. Neither the M3 release of Mozilla or IE5 were assessed in the recent tally.
Contrary to the opinion of the study's author, Eric Meyer, who stated that Opera was "really very impressive, especially given its relative youth", a buggy 78% implementation hardly seems worth touting. As I've stated before on these pages, a browser that has is 78% compliant and buggy is as useful as a 10% compliant (but bug-free) browser. In fact, the 10% compliant browser is the better option, because no workaround code is required for implementation. However, the only browser that should garner any praise is the one that is 100% compliant, and bug-free in its implementation.
In addition, an interesting statement from the WSP that appeared in the CNet article is worth mentioning.
"The uneven deployment of CSS1 in major Web browsers over the last two years has caused Web authors great frustration and expense, and has won CSS an undeservedly obscure and difficult reputation"
From my experience watching the progress of Mozilla's CSS1 implementation, it seems that CSS's reputation for being difficult is deserved. Developers have had to search the CSS2 definition to clear up vagaries in the CSS1 definition. There is no reference CSS implementation *anywhere*, so developers are essentially guinea pigs and have to not only implement CSS1, but spend time and money working through all the inconsistencies that were not addressed by a reference implementation. It doesn't seem that the uneven deployment of CSS implementations has caused CSS1's reputation. If anything, CSS1's vagueness has had the direct result of limiting its adoption.
#14 Re:Opera Now Most Compliant Browser, According to
by Aleks Zawisza <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Saturday March 27th, 1999 6:31 PM
You are replying to this message
"I look forward to your explanations as to why a buggy implementation is better than a compliant implementation of an existing standard."
I will not try to explain this because I never said that.
My argument rested on the premise that a 70% compliance means that the 70% is handled perfectly.
What you're saying is obviously that IE's 70 or whatever % is a higher percentage than Netscape's 30%, but that Netscape's 30% is handled perfectly and IE's 70% is botched.
Now, is there really evidence that most of the 70% of IE's implementation is done wrong and all of Navigator's 30% is done right? If there is evidence of this then I see that your argument has value.
If you're just speculating that Opera has "a buggy 78% implementation", but you really don't know, then I'm not so sure. I don't believe that Navigator has all of its features implemented correctly either, and it does throw in proprietary tags that confuse people, just like IE does.
I didn't mean to sound inflamatory, but I thought you meant that a *well-implemented* 70% was worse than a *well-implemented* 30%, which to me sounds pretty ridiculous.