It's not ACID1, ACID2, ACID3 compliant. It misses a lot of CSS2.1, CSS3 and JavaScript feature's. Static sites working better and better (and are way way faster than firefox).
However I think that servo is the right step, however I just think that it should have more people so that the Innovation could be faster.
Cool, thanks for helping out! I hope you're helping them by reporting bugs when you find them.
> it will take a long time until this will be stable
Sure, it's a WIP. That's to be expected. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic.
> It's not ACID1, ACID2, ACID3 compliant
https://blog.mozilla.org/research/2014/04/17/another-big-mil...
> and JavaScript feature's
Maybe DOM bindings, but Servo ships with bindings to SpiderMonkey, the JS VM used in Gecko, so all of the Language JavaScript should be there.
> I just think that it should have more people so that the Innovation could be faster
Check out the top story on proggit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3rqqvu/mozilla...
also on acid2 i get different results every day/week. sometimes i'm good somtimes not.
Yeah servo gets more support, i still think it takes at least another year (or more) to ship it.
Huh? Servo has passed Acid1 and Acid2 for, like, a year now. Servo doesn't pass Acid3, of course (although neither does Firefox anymore!).
I mean, I'm not going to claim that Servo is by any means Web compatible yet, primarily due to a long list of bugs and incompletely-implemented features. In terms of feature checklists, though, there's a lot done.
It's unstable. That doesn't mean thats bad.
And Firefox is passing Acid3. And always did.
I mean ACID1 and ACID2 failures are mostly regression that getting fixed a day after but still its not roughly stable.
Acid1 and Acid2 are reftests. The CI system ensures they continue to pass on every commit. Commits are not merged if they break the Acid tests.
> And Firefox is passing Acid3. And always did.
No, it didn't always pass it. Acid3 didn't even exist when Firefox first came on the scene.
Firefox scores 99/100 for me.
I'm more bullish on WebGL. To meet the desire to do VR, gaming, and data visualization on the web, a lot to be done. We went all in for the data side, and surprise, people with data problems are happy to pay for you to help them finally see it ;-)
> Newcomb himself admits it was a “divergent brainstorming process,” saying “We tried everything…we tried everything so we could create a business model around open source. And at the end of the day, we just couldn’t do it.”
What a load of shit. This has nothing to do with open source.
It's more like people don't want to pay for another JavaScript framework that claims to be better than the current web stack which at the end of the day, ends up reimplementing most features a web browser already has, but in WebGL. In the article, Steve even admits "We built a shitty game engine".
Recently, there were a few other attempts at reimplementing most of the web in WebGL, I think Flipboard had an article.
Let me point out, this is hard. You wind up with some of the features HTML/CSS already has that's faster, but a ton of missing stuff you end up needing at some point.
For example in WebGL, layout is non trivial, rendering text correctly is non trivial, events are non trivial. These things are an afterthought when working with HTML/CSS.
People love to shit on HTML/CSS and blame it for their problems, but at the end of the day, the grass really isn't greener on the other side.
Don't blame open source because it can't rescue your product. Great products and care for the community foster great open source communities, not the other way around.