Comparisons of IE, Opera and Firefox on DOM (Javascript/CSS) support(Opera wins)

[Bob]

Using this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(DOM)

I made some rather unscientific computations of the levels of DOM
(Document Object Model), ie, Javascript + CSS, support for IE 6, Opera
7, 8 and 9 and Firefox 1.5

Here they are:

DOM 1 supports how many

IE5 264 (15 more are broken)
IE6 293 (15 more are broken)
Opera 7 337 (1 is broken)
Opera 8 337 (1 is broken)
Opera 9 370 (1 is broken)
Firefox 367

Opera 9 barely edges out Firefox for DOM 1 support, but it is basically
a tie. IE is quite a bit behind. Even Opera 7 bests it considerably.


DOM 2 supports how many

IE5 43 (2 more are broken)
IE6 44 (2 more are broken)
Opera 7 70
Opera 8 116
Opera 9 154
Firefox 176

Firefox definitely wins for DOM 2 support, but Opera 9 also does very
well. IE6 looks like a disaster for DOM 2. Even the older Opera 7 does
much better than IE. Even more shameful is that IE barely improved from
v5 to v6


DOM 3 supports how many

IE5 0
IE6 0
Opera 7 1
Opera 8 7
Opera 9 54
Firefox 19

Although DOM 3 is very new and not supported well by browsers, Opera 9
does dramatically better than any other browser in implementing it. IE,
shamefully, has not implemented one spec, and has not improved again
between v5 and v6. Firefox does a decent job of implementing DOM 3,
considering that no browser implements much of it.


Totals

IE5 307
IE6 337
Opera 7 408
Opera 8 460
Opera 9 578
Firefox 562


For the totals, Opera 9 has the best DOM support of any major browser!
Yaaaay! Firefox is quite close though. IE is horribly behind and has
barely improved from one old version to the next. Even Opera 7 is much
better than IE6. The only conclusion is that when it comes to DOM, IE is
an incredibly broken browser. The fact that 85% of the net is using this
stupid, broken browser is just disgusting.


Methods: I counted them by hand, so there may be some errors. Feel free
to recheck. I think my totals are pretty good though.

 

[Toby Inkster]

DOM 3 supports how many

IE5 0
IE6 0
Opera 7 1
Opera 8 7
Opera 9 54
Firefox 19

Opera has recently been doing a lot of work improving their DOM
implementation to help support their new "widgets" feature.

 

[Bob]

Opera has recently been doing a lot of work improving their DOM
implementation to help support their new "widgets" feature.

What's their "widgets" feature?

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ Bob ] on Wednesday 17 May 2006 11:27 \__


This comes from the biggest Opera fan whom I know.

What's their "widgets" feature?

Have a look at the announcement in their latest release. It's a brilliant new
feature, which to me at least, _still_ gives no compelling reason to ditch
Firefox with its plug-ins.

Best wishes,

Roy

 

[Travis Newbury]

This comes from the biggest Opera fan whom I know.
Have a look at the announcement in their latest release. It's a brilliant new
feature, which to me at least, _still_ gives no compelling reason to ditch
Firefox with its plug-ins.

What you couldn't just say what this brilliant new feature is? I
haven't the time (or the bother) to go to their site and read through
their new features list. Guess I will just have to stick with FF.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ Travis Newbury ] on Wednesday 17 May 2006 12:00 \__

What you couldn't just say what this brilliant new feature is? I
haven't the time (or the bother) to go to their site and read through
their new features list. Guess I will just have to stick with FF.

The official:

http://my.opera.com/community/dev/widgets/

The 'meat' (screenshots):


http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinocho/111771754/

Best wishes,

Roy

 

[Travis Newbury]

The official:
http://my.opera.com/community/dev/widgets/
The 'meat' (screenshots):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinocho/111771754/
Best wishes,

That's what I like. Service with a smile.

thanks

 

[Travis Newbury]

The official:
http://my.opera.com/community/dev/widgets/
The 'meat' (screenshots):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinocho/111771754/

Looking mighty like a new form of popup window to me.... (the abuse
factor is there)

This is something that would make me say away from opera.

 

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ Travis Newbury ] on Wednesday 17 May 2006 12:16 \__

That's what I like. Service with a smile.

thanks

If you like toys, that is. They adopt the same name and concepts as that
which you find in OS X, unlike the upcoming "Gadgets" in Windows Vista. They
are merely distractions. Linux has had these for _ages_ (probably going back
to the previous decade). Unlike clocks, some of them have actual use, e.g.
system monitoring. At Web browser-level, I doubt there is much you can add.
Firefox extensions are far less obtrusive and they take less resources and
space. If you want to run over 20 of these simultaneously, flash must go.


__/ [ Travis Newbury ] added on Wednesday 17 May 2006 12:20 \__

Looking mighty like a new form of popup window to me.... (the abuse
factor is there)

This is something that would make me stay away from opera.

Exactly my sentiments. Nice looking, but only if you go for flash rather than
substance. Mac factor = less work | more demoware. After a few hours or
days, you will get past that stage of initial excitement and try to find out
how to rule the beast, rather than have the Beast^tm taking over your screen
space/CPU.

Best wishes,

Roy

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob
<[email protected]>
wrote

Using this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(DOM)

I made some rather unscientific computations of the levels of DOM
(Document Object Model), ie, Javascript + CSS, support for IE 6, Opera
7, 8 and 9 and Firefox 1.5

[comparisons snipped for brevity]

Interesting stuff...more grist for the mill, of course. This might be
good for a short WebPage.

Do you have anything comparable for CSS1, CSS2, CSS2.1, and (if it's
standard by now) CSS3 support?

Also, is there something for Javascript?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Have a look at the announcement in their latest release. It's a
brilliant new feature, which to me at least, _still_ gives no compelling
reason to ditch Firefox with its plug-ins.

I can't say I think it's that useful but the latest betas are only about
100 kb bigger than Opera 8.5x.

However, it has tonnes of other great things that make it worth using, and
actually seems a little faster now, so I won't be put off by one useless
feature -- after all, just because it's there, doesn't mean I have to use
it.

 

[Bob]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob
<[email protected]>
wrote

Using this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(DOM)

I made some rather unscientific computations of the levels of DOM
(Document Object Model), ie, Javascript + CSS, support for IE 6, Opera
7, 8 and 9 and Firefox 1.5

[comparisons snipped for brevity]

Interesting stuff...more grist for the mill, of course. This might be
good for a short WebPage.

Do you have anything comparable for CSS1, CSS2, CSS2.1, and (if it's
standard by now) CSS3 support?

Yes, I have something for CSS2, but I am not sure how comprehensive it
is. Here it is. A bit offtopic, cuz I was looking for a good Mac browser
for my brother:

http://macedition.com/cb/resources/macbrowsercsssupport.html

CSS2 implementation via October 2004 (first is worst, last is best):

Partial:

Safari 1.0 13
Mac IE 5.2 6
Mozilla 1.3 6
Icab 3.0 3
Opera 7 2


Quirky:

Safari 1.0 7
Mozilla 1.3 6
Mac IE 5.2 5
Icab 3.0 4
Opera 7 1


Buggy:

Safari 1.0 2
Mozilla 1.3 2
Icab 3.0 1


Not Implemented:

Mac IE 5.2 19
Safari 1.0 13
Mozilla 1.3 6
Opera 7 6
Icab 3.0 4

Totals (buggy, quirky, partial or not implemented):

Safari 1.0 37
Mac IE 5.2 30
Mozilla 1.3 14
Icab 3.0 12
Opera 7 9


Analysis: This analysis was outdated and is taken from a site about Mac
browsers dated October 2004. I am not sure to what extent the full spec
was being tested. Nevertheless, the results are still interesting. Opera
wins once again (though an older version, v7, was tested), then Icab 3.0
beta, which reportedly has a superb CSS implementation, then an older
Mozilla 1.3, then the now-discontinued by still widely-used Mac IE, then
the outdated Safari 1.0, which is also still widely used. Mac users are
urged to upgrade to Opera, Icab or Firefox/Mozilla and leave the older
Mac IE and older Safari behind. For Linux users, Opera and Moz once
again shine.

Method: Counting by hand, which may have caused errors.

Also, is there something for Javascript?

You mean ECMAscript, right? That's usually what it is called in the
tests...DOM is basically CSS + Javascript, but I think you are looking
for pure Javascript.

 

[Toby Inkster]

DOM is basically CSS + Javascript

Not really -- these three concepts are fairly independent -- as
independent as, say, HTML and CSS[1][2]. There are browsers that
support a DOM but not CSS[3]; and browsers that allow you to
manipulate the DOM without using Javascript[4].

You may be thinking of "DHTML" which is an old buzz-word for
HTML + DOM + CSS + Javascript.

The DOM is basically a tree structure that the browser creates in
memory when it parses an HTML document[5], and (if the browser
supports CSS) will also have styling information attached as "leaves".

This tree (including all its branches and leaves) can then be
inspected and manipulated using Javascript, or any other scripting
language that the host browser offers[6]. As the tree is manipulated
the browser updates the display of the page to match, allowing
for DOM manipulation to produce dynamic effects on-page.

____
1. CSS can be used to style non-HTML documents -- e.g. RSS.
2. HTML can be styled using non-CSS style sheets -- e.g. JSSS
(Netscape 4.x)
3. Netscape 2 and 3.
4. Internet Explorer 4+ on Windows, with VBScript.
5. Any structured document can have a DOM, but HTML and XML are
most common.
6. As per #4, VBScript is supported in some browsers. Mozilla's
roadmap includes the ability to "plug in" scripting modules allowing
DOM scripting in Perl, Python, etc:
http://www.mozilla.org/scriptable/agnostic.html

 

[NoNamer]

Using this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(DOM)

I made some rather unscientific computations of the levels of DOM
(Document Object Model), ie, Javascript + CSS, support for IE 6, Opera
7, 8 and 9 and Firefox 1.5

Here they are:

DOM 1 supports how many

IE5 264 (15 more are broken)
IE6 293 (15 more are broken)
Opera 7 337 (1 is broken)
Opera 8 337 (1 is broken)
Opera 9 370 (1 is broken)
Firefox 367

Opera 9 barely edges out Firefox for DOM 1 support, but it is basically
a tie. IE is quite a bit behind. Even Opera 7 bests it considerably.


DOM 2 supports how many

IE5 43 (2 more are broken)
IE6 44 (2 more are broken)
Opera 7 70
Opera 8 116
Opera 9 154
Firefox 176

Firefox definitely wins for DOM 2 support, but Opera 9 also does very
well. IE6 looks like a disaster for DOM 2. Even the older Opera 7 does
much better than IE. Even more shameful is that IE barely improved from
v5 to v6


DOM 3 supports how many

IE5 0
IE6 0
Opera 7 1
Opera 8 7
Opera 9 54
Firefox 19

Although DOM 3 is very new and not supported well by browsers, Opera 9
does dramatically better than any other browser in implementing it. IE,
shamefully, has not implemented one spec, and has not improved again
between v5 and v6. Firefox does a decent job of implementing DOM 3,
considering that no browser implements much of it.


Totals

IE5 307
IE6 337
Opera 7 408
Opera 8 460
Opera 9 578
Firefox 562


For the totals, Opera 9 has the best DOM support of any major browser!
Yaaaay! Firefox is quite close though. IE is horribly behind and has
barely improved from one old version to the next. Even Opera 7 is much
better than IE6. The only conclusion is that when it comes to DOM, IE is
an incredibly broken browser. The fact that 85% of the net is using this
stupid, broken browser is just disgusting.


Methods: I counted them by hand, so there may be some errors. Feel free
to recheck. I think my totals are pretty good though.

I know it's not out yet, but any preliminary data for IE7?

I've been using it for about 2 weeks now and really like it. The zoom
feature is awesome.

 

[Bob]

DOM is basically CSS + Javascript

Not really -- these three concepts are fairly independent -- as
independent as, say, HTML and CSS[1][2]. There are browsers that
support a DOM but not CSS[3]; and browsers that allow you to
manipulate the DOM without using Javascript[4].

You may be thinking of "DHTML" which is an old buzz-word for
HTML + DOM + CSS + Javascript.

The DOM is basically a tree structure that the browser creates in
memory when it parses an HTML document[5], and (if the browser
supports CSS) will also have styling information attached as "leaves".

This tree (including all its branches and leaves) can then be
inspected and manipulated using Javascript, or any other scripting
language that the host browser offers[6]. As the tree is manipulated
the browser updates the display of the page to match, allowing
for DOM manipulation to produce dynamic effects on-page.

____
1. CSS can be used to style non-HTML documents -- e.g. RSS.
2. HTML can be styled using non-CSS style sheets -- e.g. JSSS
(Netscape 4.x)
3. Netscape 2 and 3.
4. Internet Explorer 4+ on Windows, with VBScript.
5. Any structured document can have a DOM, but HTML and XML are
most common.
6. As per #4, VBScript is supported in some browsers. Mozilla's
roadmap includes the ability to "plug in" scripting modules allowing
DOM scripting in Perl, Python, etc:
http://www.mozilla.org/scriptable/agnostic.html

About the best definition I have seen so far.

 

[Bob]

I know it's not out yet, but any preliminary data for IE7?

Yes, I do, but not from that url. From another one, I was *really*
disappointed. There has been some limited progress WRT to CSS, but
nothing spectacular. WRT to DOM, I am not sure if there is much new at
all. These people like Web Standards Project (MS is now an official
member) who have been raving about how IE7 is so much more
standards-compliant appear to be horribly wrong. I was of the opinion
that IE7 was much better in this regard, and when I looked it up, it was
profoundly disappointing. Bottom line is IE7 is still dramatically
backwards in terms of standards implementation.

I've been using it for about 2 weeks now and really like it. The zoom
feature is awesome.

That's cool. I refuse to use IE on principle, not because it's a crappy
browser. After a reinstall, I used it for a couple of days intensively
and I had to admit it was pleasant, esp because so many pages seem to be
designed specifically for that browser. However, I ran without
antivirus, and by the end of the 2 days, I had something like 12 trojans
on my system!

 

[NoNamer]

Yes, I do, but not from that url. From another one, I was *really*
disappointed. There has been some limited progress WRT to CSS, but
nothing spectacular. WRT to DOM, I am not sure if there is much new at
all. These people like Web Standards Project (MS is now an official
member) who have been raving about how IE7 is so much more
standards-compliant appear to be horribly wrong. I was of the opinion
that IE7 was much better in this regard, and when I looked it up, it was
profoundly disappointing. Bottom line is IE7 is still dramatically
backwards in terms of standards implementation.

That's cool. I refuse to use IE on principle, not because it's a crappy
browser. After a reinstall, I used it for a couple of days intensively
and I had to admit it was pleasant, esp because so many pages seem to be
designed specifically for that browser. However, I ran without
antivirus, and by the end of the 2 days, I had something like 12 trojans
on my system!

Wow... I haven't run across any bad stuff at all.

Can you post a link to one of the sites that had a trojan? I would
like to test out IE7 in this regard.

Thanks.

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Yes, I do, but not from that url. From another one, I was *really*
disappointed. There has been some limited progress WRT to CSS, but
nothing spectacular. WRT to DOM, I am not sure if there is much new at
all. These people like Web Standards Project (MS is now an official
member) who have been raving about how IE7 is so much more
standards-compliant appear to be horribly wrong. I was of the opinion
that IE7 was much better in this regard, and when I looked it up, it was
profoundly disappointing. Bottom line is IE7 is still dramatically
backwards in terms of standards implementation.

IE7's primary goal was to fix the flaws that made IE's CSS support so
difficult to write code compatible with other browsers. A subset is much
easier to deal with if that subset performs the same as everyone else.

They did add some highly requested features, like min-width/height, but
largely not a lot of new CSS features (a notable exception is enhanced CSS
selector support [first-child, adjacent, etc..] and :hover on all
elements.)

The next version is supposed to address more CSS and DOM features,
including adding an xml parser for xhtml+xml mime type support, etc..
Frankly, fixing the existing CSS bugs is a huge step forward in my opinion.

 

[Bob]

Wow... I haven't run across any bad stuff at all.

Can you post a link to one of the sites that had a trojan? I would
like to test out IE7 in this regard.

Dunno, I was surfing tons of porn sites and they gave me trojans. Mostly
the advertiser-tracking variety, not really harmful...

 

[Bob]

Yes, I do, but not from that url. From another one, I was *really*
disappointed. There has been some limited progress WRT to CSS, but
nothing spectacular. WRT to DOM, I am not sure if there is much new at
all. These people like Web Standards Project (MS is now an official
member) who have been raving about how IE7 is so much more
standards-compliant appear to be horribly wrong. I was of the opinion
that IE7 was much better in this regard, and when I looked it up, it was
profoundly disappointing. Bottom line is IE7 is still dramatically
backwards in terms of standards implementation.

IE7's primary goal was to fix the flaws that made IE's CSS support so
difficult to write code compatible with other browsers. A subset is much
easier to deal with if that subset performs the same as everyone else.

They did add some highly requested features, like min-width/height, but
largely not a lot of new CSS features (a notable exception is enhanced CSS
selector support [first-child, adjacent, etc..] and :hover on all
elements.)

The next version is supposed to address more CSS and DOM features,
including adding an xml parser for xhtml+xml mime type support, etc..
Frankly, fixing the existing CSS bugs is a huge step forward in my opinion.

Well, anything is positive.

You have to excuse me. I am a Microsoft hater. But we also make
webpages, and most of us hate IE.

You are correct, the bugs are the real killers. A nonimplemented spec is
much easier to deal with.