The HTML5 Test
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Want to know how well your browser supports HTML5? Try the HTML5 test and find out. Points are awarded for every HTML5 feature that is supported. Added together these points give a total score between 0 and 160. Compare multiple browsers or different versions of the same browser and find out which vendor is slacking off and which vendor is pushing the web forward.
Apart from the total score, the test also shows exactly which feature is supported and groups the results into easy to compare sections. Ideal for developers wanting to keep track of the capabilities of the browsers they develop for. In fact, the whole test started out just as a small internal tool for doing just that.
Of course there are some inherent problems with doing automated tests. The tests are only trying to detect if a feature is offered by the browser. It does not test the actual functionality of each feature. Also, the HTML5 standard and other related specifications are still in development. As the specification matures I hope to add new tests to test for these new features. The upper limit of 160 is a moving goalpost. Despite these shortcomings we hope that by quantifying the level of support users and web developers will get an idea of how hard the browser manufacturers work on improving their browsers and the web as a development platform.
The results for desktop browsers
| Browser | Version | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Internet Explorer | 6 | 11 |
| Internet Explorer | 7 | 11 |
| Internet Explorer | 8 | 19 |
| Internet Explorer | 9 | 19 |
| Firefox | 3.0 | 31 |
| Opera | 9.6 – 10.1 | 38 |
| Firefox | 3.5 | 100 |
| Firefox | 3.6 | 101 |
| Firefox | 3.7a3pre/20100308 | 102 |
| Opera | 10.5 | 102 |
| Safari | 4.04 | 115 |
| Chrome | 4.0 | 118 |
| Chrome | 5.0.335.1 | 133 |
| Chrome | 5.0.342.2 | 137 |
| Safari | r55603 | 138 |
| Chrome | 5.0.371.0 | 142 |
| Safari | r55990 | 143 |
The results for phones
| OS | Version | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Opera Mini | 10 | 33 |
| iPhone OS | 2.0 | 37 |
| Android | 1.6 | 39 |
| iPhone OS | 2.1 – 2.2 | 45 |
| Maemo microB | 5 PR-1.1.1 | 55 |
| Firefox Mobile | 1.0 | 101 |
| Palm WebOS | 1.4 | 107 |
| iPhone OS | 3.0 | 110 |
| iPhone OS | 3.1 | 113 |
| iPhone OS (iPad) | 3.2 | 115 |
| Android | 2.0 – 2.1 | 118 |
| iPhone OS | 4.0 | 134 |
If you want to contribute results for browsers and phones not shown above, please leave a comment below. Please mention the exact version number of the browser and the platform you are testing on.
Excellent. This is a worthy cause!
I’m worried that you penalise points for browsers not supporting one codec vs. another and assume that all browsers must implement all codecs. Considering that the choice of codec *is not part of the HTML5 specification* I find it erroneous for you to be scoring against it–it’s called “The HTML5 test” but it’s testing for things not in the spec. Listing what codecs a browser suports is helpful, but I do hope you decide to not use this for scoring.
What I would really like to see is the individual JS APIs listed too, so that a browser can be scored on each of the MediaElement APIs (canPlayType &c.)–A table of compatibility for JS APIs would be immensely useful.
How to score the codec support is something I struggled with. You are absolutely right that the specification does not specify a required codec or even makes any recommendation regarding codecs at all. I also realize that codec support is quite a controversial issue at the moment with supporters of Ogg Theora on one side and H.264 supporters on the other.
That being said, if I were to test the functionality of the
<img>element, I would penalize implementations that do not support commonly used image formats, despite that the specification doesn’t say anything about which format should be supported. If a browser does not support transparent PNGs it would definitely score fewer points than one that did support it.The codec situation can not be directly compared to images. It’s a bit more subtle, because the decision to support just one codec isn’t a technical issue or something that simply hasn’t been implemented yet. Which codec to support is more or less a political choice.
What I did was make the first codec count more than the second. If it supports just one codec the browser will get 25 points. If it supports an additional codec it will get 5 extra points. That should give a good indication of how important supporting both codecs is compared to just one. Firefox will get 25 points for supporting Ogg Theora and Safari will get 25 points for supporting H.264. Both implementations are equal according to the test. Chrome will get 30 points however, because it supports both. That does seems fair to me because if you compare it to Safari it does offer the additional support of Ogg Theora. If you compare it to Firefox it does offer the additional support of H.264.
Just think of it as Chrome getting bonus points instead of Firefox or Safari getting penalized. To emphasize this, I am considering of letting the score run from 0 – 155, instead of 0 – 160. Despite supporting just one codec Firefox and Safari would be able to get the full score of 155 out of 155. Chrome would score a maximum of 160 out of 155 for going beyond the specification…
Opera Mini 10 – Score 33
Hi, Geolocation is not part of HTML5. You should not test for that. Remember this: http://isgeolocationpartofhtml5.com/
iPhone 4.0 scores 134
Chrome 5.0.371.0 on Linux scores 142
IPad scores 115 with iPhone os 3.2
What about including support for WebSockets in the test?
WebKit nightly r56990 – Score 143
Chrome 5.0.371.0 dev scores 142, also there are a bunch of scores are listed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1257570
another phone: N900 running OS Maemo 5 PR-1.1.1, stock browser microB (mozilla based) – 55 points
Can you please update Internet Explorer 9 in the table?
iPad Mobile Safari is 115/160
I’m getting 142 with chromium 5.0.372.0 (0).
Firefox Mobile 1.0 on a Nokia N900 scores 101
Hey!
The Test is pretty cool and the website also beautiful.
But from a graphic designers view: PLEASE change the style for the “updated version coming soon” box to: “-moz-transform:rotate(-2.5deg);” instead of the positive value. It’s a common design fault to rotate boxes in a way that text points downwards! That implies going down, thus being something negative! Positive notes should always point upwards! Please! ‘hanx!
But i still love the idea of the test. Bye!
You link the title of each section to the W3 specs, but still i find it hard to find out about the specific meaning of some of the tests. I would be thankful if you could link each test title to the appropriate part (paragraph or for whatever anchors are available) of the spec. Thanks!
[...] sich Microsoft eben auch gedacht, weshalb selbst die Beta des neuen Internet Explorer 9 laut Testergebnis nur 19 (!) von möglichen 160 Punkten [...]
OWB 1.7 for MorphOS (OWB svn 1369, WebKit svn 54765) – Score 129
Firefox 1.0 Preview Release: 6 / 160 xD
Nokia 5800, Symbian OS 9.4, internal browser – 28
Sphere lite @ iPod Touch:
113/160
IE 8 with the Google Chrome Frame add-in does support the same HTML5 features as Chrome does natively. Please update your beta HTML5 Test page to reflect this.
http://www.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/chrome-frame-getting-started
Nokia N97 Web Browser NG/7.1.18124
28/160
[...] test HTML5, una herramienta creada por Niels Leenheer, quien es diseñador gráfico y programador web, es una [...]
[...] test HTML5, una herramienta creada por Niels Leenheer, quien es diseñador gráfico y programador web, es una [...]
Your “Video” test section is not fair.
Mozilla won’t support X264 because of software patent.
That is not revelant.