Test your browser's support of CSS selectors

[TheJoshMan]

Just thought this was interesting...

http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html

Here is an enormous screenshot of the failure of EPIC proportions in IE6:

http://www.eight7teen.com/images/EPIC-FAIL.jpg

[magicyte]

My browser (IE7) doesn't support most of it. Like your sig.

-magicyte

[TheJoshMan]

You should upgrade to a more compliant browser then!

I usually recommend FF, however I believe that Safari 3.1 is actually more compliant than FF.

(thanks)

[magicyte]

I don't know if my dad'll let me download FF. - But then again, he let me download Chrome...

-magicyte

[TheJoshMan]

yea, yet another one I haven't been impressed by thusfar! LOL

[magicyte]

Define 'one'. :p

Don't worry. I'll download FF. Would you recommend 2 or 3 as of now?

-magicyte

[TheJoshMan]

definitely 3

[magicyte]

okay.

-magicyte

[Twey]

Fx fails quite a few too. Konq 4 has a perfect score.

[TheJoshMan]

so does Safari 3.1 and Opera 9

I've never used Konqueror, is it worth it?

[Twey]

Fastest browser I know, and good standards support. UI could do with work.

[Medyman]

The "failure of EPIC proportions in IE6" isn't really a failure in IE6 at all. When it released, CSS support wasn't at the level that it is today. So, the failure is really in Microsoft's inability to change with the times. The fact that it took them so long to release IE7 which still lacked comprehensive CSS support is really the failure. IE6 is outdated, that's all.

You wouldn't expect a car from the 1920's to be as efficient as a brand new model. Same applies here.

But I still wish IE6 died already.

[TheJoshMan]

with the gazillions of dollars microsoft is bringing in every year... they could very easily have made a "forced upgrade" when they started noticing that they were "falling behind" as far as compliance goes...

Did they? No.

[Moshambi]

Fx fails quite a few too. Konq 4 has a perfect score.


so does Safari 3.1 and Opera 9

I've never used Konqueror, is it worth it?

So does chrome...I figured Google would be able to do that though.

Is it really that hard to make a browser compatible with the standards?

[djr33]

FF 3.0.1 Mac.


From the 43 selectors 36 have passed, 0 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 373 out of 578 tests)

* *
* E
* .class
* #id
* E F
* E > F
* E + F
* E[attribute]
* E[attribute=value]
* E[attribute~=value]
* E[attribute|=value]
* :first-child
* :link
* :visited
* :lang()
* :before
* ::before
* :after
* ::after
* :first-letter
* ::first-letter
* :first-line
* ::first-line
* E[attribute^=value]
* E[attribute$=value]
* E[attribute*=value]
* E ~ F
* :root
* :last-child
* :only-child
///START FAILED///
* :nth-child()(47 out of 88 failed)
* :nth-last-child()(47 out of 88 failed)
* :first-of-type(7 out of 10 failed)
* :last-of-type(7 out of 10 failed)
* :only-of-type(3 out of 5 failed)
* :nth-of-type()(47 out of 88 failed)
* :nth-last-of-type()(47 out of 88 failed)
///END FAILED///
* :empty
* :not()
* :target
* :enabled
* :disabled
* :checked

[Twey]

So does chrome...I figured Google would be able to do that though.That's because Chrome uses WebKit, which is a fork of KHTML.
When it released, CSS support wasn't at the level that it is today. So, the failure is really in Microsoft's inability to change with the times.Wrong. CSS2 was made a W3C Recommendation in 1998. IE6 was released in 2001, with partial support of CSS1.
Is it really that hard to make a browser compatible with the standards?Quite difficult, yes. Certainly within Microsoft's means, though: they have been avoiding doing so for political reasons. So long as their browser implemented a different standard to the rest of the world, and the Web followed their browsers, their standards-compliant competitors would pose no threat. With the advent of Firefox, awareness of standards has been raised in webmasters, who have begun coding to them. Microsoft can no longer weasel out of becoming standards-compliant, although they've certainly tried (see Silverlight, a rich application platform that, if widely used, could more or less replace standard HTML-based websites, at the small cost of accessibility [speculation mine, don't sue me please]).

[Medyman]

Wrong. CSS2 was made a W3C Recommendation in 1998. IE6 was released in 2001, with partial support of CSS1.

You missed the point. I didn't say that the standards didn't exist. I said they weren't adopted widely by browser makers at the point of IE6's release.



with the gazillions of dollars microsoft is bringing in every year... they could very easily have made a "forced upgrade" when they started noticing that they were "falling behind" as far as compliance goes...

Did they? No.
That begs the question: is compliance everything? Didn't the web work 5-6 years ago before browsers like Firefox began to gain market share? As web developers (or something like that), I think we often get caught up in the code. A "forced upgrade" imposes something fairly arbitrary on customers. Most people don't care about the level of CSS support in their browser.

Being a market leader, Microsoft and the IE team face challenges that the makers of Firefox don't. Firefox is very much a niche product. They created it from the ground up and had the luxury of making it however they wanted.