Test Pages to identify what's implemented in browsers

[Mike Gale]

I'm interested in seeing what features are implemented in different browsers.

What are the links to pages that will enable me to get a quick check of that?

[mskinner]

http://www.opera.com/
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
http://www.apple.com/safari/
http://www.google.com/chrome
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/default.mspx

You will be pleased to know that 'bold' support is very good.

[Mike Gale]

Thanks for that but it's not what I'm after.

What I would like is a link to a fairly thorough XHTML5 test page that illustrates features realistically used. Then I can see how it looks in different browsers.

[mskinner]

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ explains that there isn't really a test suite yet, and that it's still early days.

Some people have created simple test pages that test a few HTML5 elements, but these aren't exhaustive tests. (Which would be hard with a draft status.)
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=html5+test+page+suite

If there is a compelling reason for you to use XHTML5, you might need to make your own test page to test the XHTML5 elements that you are interested in.

[Mike Gale]

Thanks for that search string. I think suite is the magic word that delivers useful content.

I found the sort of things I was expecting in a set of MS test pages for DOM storage and xdm. These greatly exceed the development I'd expected and my IE8-RC1 on a virtual machine indicates that it's real in at least that browser.

I hadn't dared to hope for the storage and xdm to be implemented yet, so was looking at some other elements which potentially offer me a way to do things that the current versions of x/html actively prevent.

I'm looking at what might be possible in a realistic time frame (2022 is too far away for me). I wouldn't have been surprised if I decided to simply forget x/html 5 for a few years. Having checked those tests there is an outside chance, for specialised audiences, that some of this stuff may be usable a lot sooner.

I couldn't find tests for what I'm interested in. I also don't have a list of the specification bits that are currently ready enough to implement. When I have the time I think I'll be forced to write my own tests but I hold out more hope than I did an hour ago.

[zcorpan]

I also don't have a list of the specification bits that are currently ready enough to implement.

Look at the WHATWG version of the HTML5 spec, it has annotations in the margins about the stability of each section, which browsers have implemented what, and some even link to existing test cases.

When I have the time I think I'll be forced to write my own tests

That would be really useful -- please write tests for parts that you're interested in!

[Mike Gale]

Thanks for that.

The annotations in the margin don't tie in with what I see in the browsers. For some elements that I am interested in there are no marginal notes.

The one I saw with implementation details was (I think) head.

Yes I've created my own private test pages and started comparing browsers. These include the programmatic things (as tested by that MS test suite). Unsurprisingly IE8 pases the dom storage and xdm tests. FF also seems to pass those xdm tests.

For the focus of my interest meter and time, I didn't notice implementation of meter (which suggests a representation in the UI).

(I'm not using meter for the purpose in it's description, but I can re-define it's parameters in a way that suits my puposes.)

For the special div elements (header, footer, menu, aside...) there seem to be several implementations though I didn't notice that in the marginal notes.

[zcorpan]

Thanks for that.

The annotations in the margin don't tie in with what I see in the browsers. For some elements that I am interested in there are no marginal notes.

The one I saw with implementation details was (I think) head.

You're right, the elements were poorly annotated. I've gone through the spec now and annotated things.

Yes I've created my own private test pages and started comparing browsers.

Could you make your tests public? Test cases are always good to have.

These include the programmatic things (as tested by that MS test suite). Unsurprisingly IE8 pases the dom storage and xdm tests. FF also seems to pass those xdm tests.

For the focus of my interest meter and time, I didn't notice implementation of meter (which suggests a representation in the UI).

meter and time are not implemented yet.

(I'm not using meter for the purpose in it's description, but I can re-define it's parameters in a way that suits my puposes.)

What are you using it for?

For the special div elements (header, footer, menu, aside...) there seem to be several implementations though I didn't notice that in the marginal notes.

Which implementations are you referring to? Those you listed are not implemented in IE, Gecko, WebKit or Opera, AFAIK. (Well, menu is implemented to the extent it was specified in HTML 3.2 but nothing new from HTML5 is supported.)

[Pacoup]

Off-topic, but related, you have this for CSS.
See http://www.css3.info/

[Mike Gale]

Thanks for updating the annotations.

It's worth noting that on some screens it's hard to see the symbols. They are very faded. Mouse over lets you see the text which is very useful. (Some of the grades of implementation are indistinguishable and all but invisible on my monitor.)

I'm not familiar with the Shims browser and didn't find any detail about it.

The WhatWG page errors in IE7. I viewed with Chrome.

My private test pages are too rough to release.

You're right about those implementation details (nav, aside, header...). I naively used a test page I found. It was made more believable by the existing work on menu.

I'm using meter to represent data where the value has a range. In other words value is expressed as valueLo, valueExpected and valueHi. For that I can use the Low, Value and High attributes. (Conceptually the Low and High are part of the "gauge background" as opposed to the value so visual representations (should we get any) may be misleading.)

I've been representing such things with other mechanisms for a long time. I never expected to get a way to express these in widely available markup so it's a great advance for me. (I anticipate using it from code so a visual representation is less important.)

(Many values in the real world are actually like that. The mathematics we are taught and that is in our computers doesn't acknowledge this. (Not too surprising, the maths resulting from it is more work!) Consequently most people are not consciously aware that the point values we talk about every day can be a fiction.)

It would be cool if valueLo and valueHi were also there but I don't really expect to get that.

[Mike Gale]

A thought.

Those annotations are a very good snapshot. (provide users can see the detail)

A summary page with feature and implementation summary next too it would be a very powerful way to check implementation status.

[DanMan]

I like this website a lot: http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/

[rekk1986]

Oh, each browser has their own features, so when it displays the implements of code, there has actually been different display, but a little

[AmandaSmith]

Thanx for the info....

[ashantycapre]

hI Guyzzz!!!
Greetings.
I love to see those who are in these forum.May you have fun in it.
Thanks for that search string. I think suite is the magic word that delivers useful content.

I found the sort of things I was expecting in a set of MS test pages for DOM storage and xdm. These greatly exceed the development I'd expected and my IE8-RC1 on a virtual machine indicates that it's real in at least that browser.

I hadn't dared to hope for the storage and xdm to be implemented yet, so was looking at some other elements which potentially offer me a way to do things that the current versions of x/html actively prevent.