
The HTML5 test – How well does your browser support HTML5? - uptown
http://html5test.com/
======
Sephr
Codec support isn't HTML5 support. Also, since when was MP3 audio/mpeg3 (which
is tested)? The test should be for audio/mpeg. I know Chrome supports MP3.

~~~
loup-vaillant
That was an explicit choice: "In some cases the tests go beyond the
specification." Given the current battle over codecs right now, I think this
is a good choice.

~~~
DrJokepu
That doesn't change the fact that the correct MIME type of mp3 _IS_
audio/mpeg, not audio/mpeg3. It is a defect to test for audio/mpeg3.

------
pufuwozu
I don't agree with the video ratings - codec support isn't defined in the
HTML5 specification. It's not really fair to give a rating based on
unspecified decisions.

There's still a big debate about who's wrong and right, why should this test
get involved? Surely some people will just see that Chrome gets 30/30 and
think that Firefox/Safari are thus inferior.

------
roschdal
Internet Explorer 8: 19/160

~~~
JBiserkov
Same with the Platform Preview 9.00.7745.6019

------
samg
It'd be more useful to have this list for all browsers, rather than just the
one you happen to be using.

~~~
bouncingsoul
Table of overall scores for different browsers: <http://rakaz.nl/2010/03/the-
html5-test.html>

~~~
adzuci
I love the scores posted, I also love that I don't see any above me (Chrome
5.0.371.0) (yet), but I'd like to see a bit of a better breakdown. Anyone know
of some info on some of the conflicts, like I'm missing a few in User
Interaction, but I don't know who isn't. Or other html5 statistics sites,
since the topic is a pretty common trend right now.

Edit: (Like this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(H...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_\(HTML_5\))
in case its useful to anyone)

I agree on the fact that there should be some differentiation between current
html5 and proposed, (and that this site is hilarious:
<http://isgeolocationpartofhtml5.com/>), as well as some of the downfalls of
scoring codec support that the author has mentioned, I think I like the out of
155 idea where chrome can go above it.

------
natmaster
This test seems kind of silly because it's testing things that aren't even
close to becoming standards. Take Web SQL:
<http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/>

The current version this test is based off, was put up this month by Google.
Just a few months ago, SQL wasn't even in a draft document.

Personally, I think it's destructive to put tests up on drafts that are so
highly volatile. The biggest CSS bug in IE6 was because the initial definition
of the box model was ambiguous about measuring width vs padding.

------
lukifer
Where are WebSockets?

~~~
adzuci
Isn't WebKit the only engine to support them now, and isn't in not formalized
yet? But I think KAAZING would make support easily feasible without direct
built in support so I'm not too concerned with including it in the score.

------
avar
NCSA Mosaic 2.7b6: None existant

------
PCheese
WebKit nightly r57408: 137/160

~~~
labria
r56990 — 143

~~~
adzuci
How does that work? It went backwards? And WebKit in what browser?

~~~
Zev
WebKit nightlies: <http://nightly.webkit.org/>

And they probably enabled or disabled some features, based on what they're
working on.

For awhile (or, a few days, at least), Safari release was faster than WebKit
nightlies on SunSpider, since they were working on strings in SFX (or
something like that. Point I'm making is, release was faster and the slowdown
was in the strings test).

------
windsurfer
N900 default browser: 55

I'm pretty surprised at that. I expected higher due to it's Firefox roots.

------
paraschopra
I thought I will get a zero. But this site doesn't work in Lynx.

<http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/lynx/lynx_viewer.php>

------
jp_sc
The tests for "section", "nav", "article", etc. fail in Firefox because it
report them as "HTMLUnknownElement" not because they can't be really used and
styled like any other element.

------
grandalf
wow, chrome on linux scores 137. Higher than the latest firefox!

~~~
jfr
Current chrome-unstable (5.0.371.0dev) on Linux scores 142.

------
natmaster
H.264 codec support is NOT part of HTML5.

------
omaranto
Safari on iPod Touch (3.1.3 OS): 113

~~~
barrkel
Android (Nexus One): 118

------
watty
This proves HTML5 has a very long ways to go before replacing all 3rd party
plugins.

------
jgranby
OmniWeb 5.10.2 sneaky peek (v622.11 r128512): 113 (not in the rakaz.nl list)

------
gloob
Whatever version of Iron that I'm using on Linux: 118.

------
joubert
IPad Safari: 115

------
Anon84
142/160 Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev on OSX

------
RyanMcGreal
Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Chrome 5.0.342.7 beta: 137/160

~~~
kevinholesh
Webkit Nightly: 133/160

~~~
sp332
Firefox nightly: 102

------
0xdeadc0de
Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

~~~
queensnake
Latest, ie Gecko/20100410 Minefield/3.7a5pre 20100410 (well almost latest):
102

------
BCM43
w3m and links: Des not run.

------
duairc
I got 138 with Epiphany.

------
stuntmouse
Safari 4.0.5: 115/160

~~~
j-g-faustus
Other OS X alternatives (on OS X 10.5):

Opera 10.10: 38/160

Firefox 3.6.3: 101/160

Chrome 5.0.342: 137/160

------
harlos
Midori 0.1.9

117/160

------
hackermom
Safari 4.0.5 / OS X 10.6.3/x86 - 120/160.

I believe various configuration settings might affect the score.

------
yanw
Chrome 5.0.342.9 beta: 137/160

~~~
bostich
Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev: 142/160

