Sputnik: ECMAScript 3 conformance test suite

Today, The Chromium Blog has officially released their ECMAScript 3 conformance test suite in a form that is more friendly to test in your browser. The test contains over 5,000 tests (currently 5,246) and continues to grow!

The Chromium Blog has also posted some initial results among the top web browsers for Windows (emphasis is mine).

In this example, when running Sputnik on a Windows machine, we saw the following results: Opera 10.50: 78 failures, Safari 4: 159 failures, Chrome 4: 218 failures, Firefox 3.6: 259 failures and Internet Explorer 8: 463 failures.

An experimental plot to illustrate how the latest stable browsers compare.

Putting that into terms of 100% conformance rates: Opera 10.50: 98.5% successful, Safari 4: 97.0% successful, Chrome 4: 95.9% successful, Firefox 3.6: 95.1% successful and Internet Explorer 8: 91.2% successful.

Running the test myself in the latest Opera 10.50 snapshot for Linux (Build 6242) I’m seeing a solid 77, proof that Opera 10.50 is progressing still!

As explained in their post, the goal of this test is not related to Javascript performance in terms of speed, but in terms of conformance to the spec. Ideally all browsers would be in the center of the bullseye, meaning they all conform and behave (nearly) identically.

The Sputnik tests have been released as an open source project, so if you’re interested in providing conformance test cases to improve the future web..now is a perfect chance to get involved. 😉

To run the test yourself or learn more about it, visit: http://sputnik.googlelabs.com/

ECMAScript and CSS: Quick Lesson

Hey all, I know most of you are not guru’s in ECMAScript (a.k.a. Javascript)..but then again I’m not either. I just wanted to share a little tip with you. I find that many times when people try to add javascript functions to their pages or web applications, they add the functions in an incorrect manor.

Here is the most common mistake made. Say you want to make an image button or a hyperlink on your page that is linked to a javascript function. You might attempt this..

<a href=”#” onclick=”Javascript:someFunction();”> Click Here to do some action </a>

One more correct way to do this would be the following..

<a onclick=”Javascript:someFunction();” style=”cursor: pointer;”> Click Here to do some action </a>

Or..if you are using an image as a button or link to a javascript function then instead of wrapping an anchor tag around it, you could do the following..

<img src=”./image.png” alt=”buton” onclick=”Javascript:someFunction();” style=”cursor: pointer;”>

So you can see that the main difference is the use of some simple css ( cursor: pointer; ) which gives you the effect of appearing to “link” to something. The whole linking design is a good way to just make your functions easier for users to find (verses the regular arrow cursor). However, the problem with the incorrect method that I mentioned is that search engines tend to find your site and scan links. When they scan links with addresses such as “#” they usually rank your pages lower. Using css can help you avoid causing poor search results for your site. Also, some browsers are not designed to follow links such as “#” and often just reload the current page. You don’t want your page reloading instead of performing the script that you thought you correctly called for..do you?

So it’s best to just follow safe methods and standards to ensure that your code lasts longer and is supported in most all browsers without having to do silly browser specific hacks. These hacks can often become out dated very fast and force you to do hacks to your hacks. If you’d like to check into other web standards take a look at W3C. If you have any comments or suggested articles please let me know!