Hi,
If I may weigh in, I wonder if passing Acid3 is a valuable goal in the
short term.
IE8 scores 20/100 at Acid3. All major websites and most websites have to
support IE8, because it's the current "boat-anchor browser" [1]. So most
websites don't need the features that make a 100 score.
Speci
I don't think we should be setting these kinds of goals for Servo in the
short term. Passing Acid-style tests or meeting site-compatibility criteria
require doing a lot of work that is not particularly risky and does not
have much architectural impact on the engine ... but there's a lot of work
to
On 25/02/14 11:42, David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
If I may weigh in, I wonder if passing Acid3 is a valuable goal in the
short term.
IE8 scores 20/100 at Acid3. All major websites and most websites have to
support IE8, because it's the current "boat-anchor browser" [1]. So most
websites don't need the
On 2/25/14 6:42 AM, David Bruant wrote:
If I may weigh in, I wonder if passing Acid3 is a valuable goal in the
short term.
Absolutely not. It's not a valuable goal in any term, really, until
we're trying to go for random "standards pr" points.
-Boris
I forgot. I was referring to https://github.com/mozilla/servo/wiki/Roadmap
Le 25/02/2014 12:57, James Graham a écrit :
Having said that, I don't think that using "IE8 parity" as a metric is
very useful. IE8 takes a lot of non-standard codepaths on real sites,
so merely targeting the standard fe
>> If I may weigh in, I wonder if passing Acid3 is a valuable goal in the
>> short term.
>
> Absolutely not. It's not a valuable goal in any term, really, until we're
> trying to go for random "standards pr" points.
Acid2 and Acid3 are the current goals of our partners, and the Servo
team is help
Le 25/02/2014 17:14, Jack Moffitt a écrit :
If I may weigh in, I wonder if passing Acid3 is a valuable goal in the
short term.
Absolutely not. It's not a valuable goal in any term, really, until we're
trying to go for random "standards pr" points.
Acid2 and Acid3 are the current goals of our p
On 2/25/14 3:55 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
I don't think we should be setting these kinds of goals for Servo in the
short term. Passing Acid-style tests or meeting site-compatibility criteria
require doing a lot of work that is not particularly risky and does not
have much architectural impact
On 25/02/2014 18:02, Patrick Walton wrote:
So I agree that we must not make architectural decisions that make it
difficult to implement Web features. But I do think that Web compat is
useful, because it helps us to identify the parallel hazards and know
where we stand in terms of the Web of today
> From my point of view, especially with my work lately, one of the most
> important questions that Servo needs to answer is "how much parallelism
> can we gain on real-world Web sites?" To that end, Web site
> compatibility (which Acid2 is a rough proxy for a large subset of, if
> used sensibly [
> Is it possible to programmatically identify CSS rules or page layouts which
> would benefit from the parallelism that Servo potentially offers? For the CSS
> un/prefixing debate I/we had some success in deploying web crawlers that
> parsed and summarized millions of CSS rules from thousands of
On 2/25/14 1:02 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
To that end, Web site compatibility (which Acid2 is a rough proxy for a large
subset of, if
used sensibly [1])
Acid3 is a _much_ worse proxy here than Acid2, even with your sensible
use caveat, fwiw.
-Boris
__
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> So I agree that we must not make architectural decisions that make it
> difficult to implement Web features. But I do think that Web compat is
> useful, because it helps us to identify the parallel hazards and know where
> we stand in terms
On 2/25/14 3:08 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
That's a good point, but Acid3, and to a lesser extent Acid2, are about
testing edge cases and the presence of obscure features. I don't think
they tell you anything significant about parallelism in the mass of
pages on the Web. No single page can, but
14 matches
Mail list logo
