CSS3 isn't a finalised standard, and the test only tests a few things. You do realise there is a lot which this doesn't test too right? That's why some browsers took so quick passing ACID3 (because they focused on fixing the cases tested by ACID3 only)
And as mentioned, one of them is a speed test which is affected by external circumstances.
I'm not saying its irrelevent, but I am saying that a 100% pass rate doesn't mean its 100% compliant with the things being tested. Furthermore, we shouldn't be punishing companies which aren't willing to implement support for standards which are drafts.
ACID2 was genuinely useful because it was all finalised standards. ACID3 though I think could have done better.. So its nice to pass, but a 100% pass just says you are compliant with 100 tests. I'm betting the compliance testing suites used by browsers are a LOT more comprehensive..
CSS3 isn't a finalised standard, and the test only tests a
few things. You do realise there is a lot which this
doesn't test too right?
That's exactly my point: Acid3 test the important bits, the parts of the spec which are useful. This test is web apps oriented (hence a strong focus on DOM manipulation and dynamic behavior) and thats where web is heading now.
And as mentioned, one of them is a speed test which is affected by external circumstances.
I'm not saying its irrelevent, but I am saying that a 100% pass rate doesn't mean its 100% compliant with the things being tested. Furthermore, we shouldn't be punishing companies which aren't willing to implement support for standards which are drafts.
ACID2 was genuinely useful because it was all finalised standards. ACID3 though I think could have done better.. So its nice to pass, but a 100% pass just says you are compliant with 100 tests. I'm betting the compliance testing suites used by browsers are a LOT more comprehensive..