but even the much better FF isn't truly compliant. Thats why I like the Tidy FF extension which checks a page to see if it is W3C compliant (currently shows this site as having 180 warnings)

If FF isn't complaint, who is? Opera? Safari? Konqueror? WHO?!?

Yes, it's true FF isn't totally compliant...but it's not compliant in the way that the NBA isn't real basketball -- no one really cares.

Safari, Opera, and Konqueror are all more compliant than FF, with Safari being the most of the three (the last I checked anyway, I believe Opera9 catches back up)

Bah, I know I'm not compliant. :/ I'm working on it.

Hehe, try visiting my blog in Internet Explorer.

In order of compliantness:
Safari
Opera 9
Konqueror/iCab (exact some bug)

with the new release of FireFox 2 alpha, they may be back in the game.

I'm assuming you are referring to the compliance to the Acid2 Test. Which, of course, does not test EVERYTHING. Meaning that MIGHT and MIGHT NOT be the order of compliance. But even so, Opera9 and Safari both pass Acid2's test, so it would really be:

Safari/Opera 9
Konqueror/iCab

I dislike the Acid test. It's testing obscure rendering methods, and only shows that the developers put some very specific stuff into the parser. There's far, far more stuff that it doesn't test for than what it does. This said, I think it's a rough indication of how well the developers are following standards (unless they're specifically making it pass the Acid test).

Yeah, the Acid test is a little bit too rigorous IMHO.

Exactly. Someone should come up with an alternate test that looks at more everyday website stuff and covers more areas less specifically.

I'd like to see a test that rigorously covers every component of compliance in an individual manner to make it easier to assess the specific strengths and weaknesses of different browsers in the same place.

Are we just saying the same thing in big words now to increase our growing postcount and post average counts at the moment?

I personally, do not believe that to be the case, but you never know, I could be mistaken in my opinion. <_<

You misused, the comma, in that last sentence. Commas, are only used, to break up full phrases; in some of those, the comma, is only separating, fragments, not full, phrases.

Wow.... There is so much incorrect info in that it isn't even funny. The Acid test only tests now-basic HTML tags. The Acid2 test is for more advanced CSS items and such that are often requested by developers but aren't widely available enough to be used in websites. It is not obscure rendering, and the test that was being talked about is the Acid2 test, NOT the Acid test. The Acid2 test even covers transparant PNG images, which is something that is very useful, yet not all browsers support (*cough, IE, cough*)

If a browser can't pass the Acid test (refering to Jpez's "Acid test is .... too rigorous" now), then it can't visit a large portion of the web. The Acid test used to be extreme (like Acid2 is now), yet now the features it tested are so common that even IE gets them right (and has for many, many versions)

While I realize I am now being nitpicky and pointing out you all typed Acid instead of Acid2, they are two extremely different tests that are both done by the same organization. I hope you also realize that the used-to-be-tough Acid test is now so basic that you don't even think about it. Acid2 will become that way eventually too, and the features it tests will be used.

Concerning commas: they are also used to seperate lists and adjectives. Eg. Look at all these lazy, stupid n00bs. It can also be used, for example, to seperate phrases and apositives, not just "full phrases".

Ah yes, excuse my typo. I meant Acid2 is too rigorous and not terribly helpful in discerning which specific features do not work.

*Acid2

Cont_rant("Acid2 Test", "@Kerm | Jpez");

Acid2 doesn't test super advanced, futuristic stuff. In fact, it only requires HTML4, CSS1, PNG, and dataURL compliance - hardly too much to ask for. Margins, PNGs, the object tag (part of HTML spec), and css-parsing are all covered in the Acid2 test. Look through what it tests ( http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/guide/ ) and you will see that it isn't obscure items that it tests. It is common sense things that would make web pages much easier to design and layout (especially since it tests absolute, relative, and fixed positioning )

You both have websites. Tell me how testing margins, positioning, and generated content is "too rigourous" or is an "obscure rendering method"?

Also, the tests ARE split up. Each "line" of the smiley face concerns a different, distiguishable part of the tests (they do test a couple things simultaneously, but that still narrows it down considerably). You would, of course, know this if you actually read how the test works rather than assuming you knew how it worked.

you notice that it is only Windows people who complain about Acid2? Benryves complains, my system administrator at school complains, Kerm and JPez complain....

Linux and Mac fans such as Kllrnohj, burntfuse and myself think it is cool because we have actually read what it tests.