Talk:Acid3

Archive

Old discussions for this page has been archived.

• Talk:Acid3/Archive 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itpastorn (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Talk:Acid3/Archive 2 mabdul 0=* 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The stable photos

I think the stable photos should be permanent, i.e. we don't update them when the new version of the browser goes stable.

The pictures should document browsers as they existed at the moment ACID3 was created. This will show the impact of the test, and how it influenced browser development. In fact I think we should add a column for 'Development build as of the release date of the test'.

The Development column should be kept up to date - for now, until all the browsers pass, and then should be removed.

Comments? Ariel. (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense, but add a "current stable" if an updated stable does not completely pass, but is different than the initial version. There's no reason to put up photos of what it looks like when it passes, however. ffm 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to me. There was no "moment of creation" for Acid3. Developers of the browsers were very busy fixing bugs in their browsers for months before Acid3 was officially released. Not to mention that the whole point of Acid3 is to get browser developers to release a stable version that passes the test. To me it serves no purpose and misleads readers of the article as to what the purpose of Acid3 is. How well browsers did before the test was released is of no consequence. I think the table should remain as is, updating the stable and development screenshots as new versions are released, until a stable release of each browser passes Acid3. When that happens, its row should be removed. -- Schapel (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"misleads readers of the article as to what the purpose of Acid3 is" - actually quite the opposite! By showing the sudden improvement in browsers we show how the acid3 test strongly influenced browser development. Look at webkit for example - they would never have made all those fixes if not for acid3. By showing what webkit looked like before acid3 was released we show what acid3 did to browser development. Ariel. (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And exactly how does the current article not show the sudden improvement in browsers and show how the acid3 test strongly influenced browser development? It seems clear to me. What doesn't make sense is showing how browsers did before the test was developed. It serves no purpose. Perhaps after all browsers pass the test, we could show the most popularly used browsers that do not pass and how well they do. That would be useful, to demonstrate that even though all browsers pass, web developers cannot simply use all the features tested, as older browsers that do not pass are still in common use. -- Schapel (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like the idea but I don't think we should have images for each stable revision of a browser, just text to show the progress that was made from the time the Acid3 was released to when it passed.

example:
"History of Acid3 Progress"
• Firefox 2.0.0.9 - 52/100 - 2007/12/01
• Firefox 2.0.1.1.- 74/100 - 2008/04/01
• Firefox 2.1.0.2 - 85/100 - 2008/09/01
pattersonc (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.6 and it passes 53/100. Whats gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.192.5 (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Formal tests

I propose we make a list article about every major test or test suite for browsers. The Acid tests serve a purpose, but passing formal test suites from W3C is more important. I think we should try to raise awareness and improve WP's encyclopedic value by making a page like I have started sketching out at User:itpastorn/browsertests.--itpastorn (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than create a new article, why not add them to the relevant article:

• Comparison of layout engines (XML)
• Comparison of layout engines (XHTML)
• Comparison of layout engines (graphics)
• Comparison of layout engines (CSS)
• Comparison of layout engines (DOM)
• Comparison of layout engines (HTML5)
• Comparison of layout engines (ECMAScript)
• Comparison of layout engines (SVG)

-- Schapel (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do both. I think a new page listing all the tests is a good idea, but I don't think you need to create a page for each test (if you were planning it). Ariel. (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No Critique?

IMHO the article should include negative points about the test as well, like http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/ --85.180.249.188 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I noticed on the web at the time of that post, it was much regarded as 'whining' from Shaver attempting to push the blame for why Firefox 3 didn't pass Acid3 to the test and it's writers, instead of attributing it to a timing fiasco. And from what I've seen, that has been the only notable article with negative feelings about Acid3. -Pyro3d (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Firefox® 3.1.x Testing Builds

Hallo, just to report that there's some specific test version of firefox 3.1b1 that strikes 96/100 on acid3 (just tested). Check it http://www.wg9s.com/mozilla/firefox/ and here the screenshot --Gennargentu (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now at 97/100 in a build on "Talk like a pirate day" no less... Anyone want to replace the 86/100 screenshot in the "development build" column in the article, as it fits that description, even though it's a special unofficial build, not unlike the WinGogi build Opera screenshot. Mardeg (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a nightly build. I read that as 87/100 instead of 97/100... I don't think it can be compared to WinGogi as that is at least a build from Opera itself instead of a "third party". --Execvator (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as requested I replaced it with a screenshot of a build from build.mozilla.org itself that scores 97/100 Mardeg (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, despite being hosted at build.mozilla.org, it is not actually an official trunk build. However, since it is built by a Mozilla developer, I think it should be OK. Thoughts? nneonneo ^talk 03:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the official nightly builds (20081007) still score 89/100. We'll see if these changes get integrated. One thing to watch is the Firefox Acid3 spreadsheet linked on the article page. slythfox ^talk 23:53, 7 October 2008 (PST)

The official nightly trunk build (Minefield 3.1b2pre) still has a score of 90/100 as at 20081015. Though the build referred to is built by Mozilla but it is not the official build. Firefox 3.1 will be released from the official trunk build. I suggest that we should use the screenshot of a official nightly build. Scanorama (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. There is a similar problem with the Presto development screenshot; it also doesn't represent how the next release of Opera will perform with regards to Acid3. We should replace Gecko and Presto screenshots with screenshots of the latest official Firefox and Opera builds, which will help to show how the next official releases of those browsers will perform. -- Schapel (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the screenshot with the one from the official Firefox nightly trunk build. The latest score is 93/100. Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b2pre) Gecko/20081016 Minefield/3.1b2pre ID:20081016033525 Scanorama (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WebKit First to Pass Acid3

It looks like the WebKit is the first browser engine to pass the acid3 test. http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/ Kharri1073 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this ought to be mentioned somewhere... Although that version of WebKit is still not released in any stable browser, and Gecko will pass soon too, and Firefox 3.1 might be released before Safari 4, who knows... (Rklz2 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

So, this section of the article is incorrect? --Execvator (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As of build r34278, WebKit produces a smooth animation, and thus passes the Acid3 test[1].

The test might still change

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0218.html

This might mean that Webkit goes down to 99 again - but it will probably not take many hours for them to patch it again. Heck! They are probably already working on a patch in case the CSS WG decides to clarify the spec and Ian H accordingly changes the test. --itpastorn (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Update. The CSS WG has decided to ask Ian Hickson to change the test. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454226#c7

--itpastorn (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefox internal builds at 97

FYI. Firefox have patches lined up to get to 97.

• http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=851335&start=15&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
• https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216462#c109
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANDVHvPxdww

Probably not stuff for the article yet, though.

--itpastorn (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chart highlighting

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of highlighting the table of browsers with red for "fail" and green for "pass," for the following reasons:

• It is redundant for the first column, since the sentence immediately before the table already states that "every web browser failed the test at the time of its release."

• No browser is currently shipping a stable release that passes the test, which makes almost all of the table red. It's not clear at all what's being compared until one scrolls to the bottom of the table to see the single green cell, that of Safari 4 DP.

• No mobile browser at all passes the test, which makes the lower chart completely red.

Simply put, this is unnecessary. Once browsers start shipping stable releases that pass acid3, I propose two sections - one for layout engines that pass and one for those that fail. Cluttering the comparison table, as it now stands, just makes it harder for the reader to make a quick review of where different browsers stand.

I would say something similar about the leftmost column for "score at time of acid3 release" (it just seems irrelevant), but since it's been on the page for quite some time now, the general consensus must be that it is needed.

I won't change the coloring or layout, but I suggest that this is considered.

Thanks, --Luinfana (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this; additionally, the colours themselves look ugly behind images. I've removed the colours. Warren -talk- 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mobile browsers

I noticed Warren's edit removing Pocket IE, and I agree -- a screenshot of WM 2003 is hardly new. However, we do need screenshots for Acid3 on PIE, since it is a major mobile browser. I believe that WM6 is the version we want for "Screen­shot of Stable Build at Time of Acid3 Release", and WM6.1 should be the screenshot for "Latest Stable Build Screen­shot". Of course, if someone has access to a development version of WM7, it would be suitable for "De­vel­op­ment Build Screen­shot".

Also, I don't think the Fennec screenshot is indicative of the actual performance of Fennec. It only shows Gecko running on a desktop environment, which is hardly realistic considering that Fennec will likely be pared down and doesn't even seem close to "alpha" status yet. I think that it should be removed, or replaced with Minimo screenshots. nneonneo ^talk 03:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if I'm not mistaken, Fennec is actually just a shell running on top of XULRunner, so it uses the same Gecko engine in the XULRunner. Since Gecko 1.9 has yet to be successfully ported to a mobile phone platform (Maemo is not a mobile phone platform), so there's no way to tell how well it will fare in Acid3 when ported to, say, Windows Mobile (as shown with WebKit, on desktop environment it scores 100/100, but after ported to mobile platform it scores lower).

I have removed Fennec from the chart, maybe someone can add Minimo, or wait for a Fennec build that runs on Windows Mobile Ufopedia (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fennec screenshot on windows mobile added, see http://blog.mozilla.com/blassey/2008/10/11/windows-mobile-update-3-fonts/ Mardeg (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

netscape browser

should netscape 8 or 9 be on the list? i got 35/100 for acid3 and a smiley face that loads better than the netscape 7.2 picture for acid2 (i'm using netscape 8 to test, and you can even scroll somehow...), and (obviously) passed acid1. i'll test netscape navigator 9 tomorrow. Devrit 01:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Netscape had already been discontinued when Acid3 was released. Regardless, Netscape 8 and 9 are based on Firefox, so I don't think they would score any differently than Firefox. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Opera 9.70 Beta?

I just noticed that the development build for Opera is currently listed as "9.70 b1pre," with the same score and graphic as 9.6, the current stable release.

I can't find a public download or any information about a beta/prerelease of 9.7.

If indeed there is a 9.7 beta, a link should at least be added to the notes section of the chart.

Also, this should not replace the 99/100 screenshot of the Gogi build, which more accurately represents Opera's progress with unstable code.

Thanks,

--Luinfana (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is changed back to the 99/100 build from "not the next official version", then Firefox screenshot should also change back to the 97/100 build likewise. Mardeg (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

but there is a differeces! the wingogi build is from opera software asa ("an official build"!) --> the firefox build is not from mozilla, it is build by a "fanboy" --> not an official build... so guess... mabdul 0=* 08:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a separate 3rd party build with the one located at https://build.mozilla.org/tryserver-builds/2008-10-03_00:03-ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com-try-836bb85189e/ which is built by an official firefox developer. Furthermore the builds are for all 3 supported platforms as opposed to a single platform the wingogi build is for, so a screenshot of it could rightly be seen as more justified to be there than the Opera screenshot, but I'm happy to see both restored. Mardeg (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, we should bring both dev-builds back! But The Gogi build is also avaible for Linux! (dev.opera.com). mabdul 0=* 10:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should the development builds be brought back? The Opera dev build screenshot seemed to only cause confusion. Opera users couldn't understand why Opera 9.5 didn't score 100% on Acid3, for example. I didn't want to say anything, because for some reason people think I'm picking on Opera. But after someone pointed out that the Firefox screenshot was confusing, I thought I could speak out without being accused of favoritism. -- Schapel (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If people are confused, then we should adding inks to the article/page where to download the build... mabdul 0=* 17:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would solve the problem. Opera users see that a development build of Presto passes, but it does not represent how the next released version of Opera will perform on Acid3. It's exactly the same problem that was discussed with Firefox. To me that's the whole purpose of the column -- to demonstrate how well future released browsers will perform. It doesn't matter how well a browser performs on Acid3 if it's never released officially and never sees widespread usage. -- Schapel (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree and have fixed the column headers to clarify their intended purpose (Rklz2 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

It's not about whether you think it will solve the problem of confusing readers, it's about reputable and notable sources. And Opera's Gogi build has many reputable and notable sources. Ufopedia (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is all about writing readable and understandable articles. Don't get lost in the minutia of the rules. Use common sense. Just because you're allowed to say something because you can find a reliable source that says it, doesn't mean you should add that information to an article. The information you add to articles should first and foremost make it a better article. Including information about custom Firefox and Opera builds isn't particularly useful for the purpose of this article. What's useful is seeing how the next official release of Firefox and Opera will perform. -- Schapel (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's not for you to decide, you can spend all your time rationalize what "makes a better article" and what not, but what you think as a "better article" doesn't matter here, and what you think "Wikipedia is about" doesn't matter here. We write the article according to the rules, not according what you think is useful. The rules of Wikipedia say that it should include relevant information from notable and reliable sources, and that's not what I or you say or think, and that's how we should write the articles. Ufopedia (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote "The rules of Wikipedia say that it should include relevant information from notable and reliable sources". So the debate is about whether an internal development build passing the test which doesn't even feature a user interface, is relevant to the article. I don't think so. WinGogi is not even functionable as a browser. (Rklz2 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

The article is about Acid3. Is WinGogi relevant to the article? Of course it is. Does it represent the progression in the Presto layout engine? Sure it does. Whether it is a full-fledged fully-featured browser is irrelevant here. And the table is not about browsers, but about layout engines. So WinGogi IS relevant information from notable and reliable sources. Oh, and WinGogi surely DOES feature a user interface, and IS actually a functional browser, just not fully featured. Have you even tried it? I hope you actually go download and try it yourself before saying clearly incorrect things like "doesn't even feature a user interface". And it's quite functionable as a browser, I'm using it to edit wikipedia here Ufopedia (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rklz2's changes to the column headers; preview releases are indeed more relevant to the article than development builds. That said, as the headers stood before said edit, I believe the Gogi build was the proper representative for Opera's progress. Although it didn't imply that Opera's next release would score 100/100 (or 99/100), certainly the fact that a browser team can reach a certain score says something about their progress and their dedication to passing. As I said, though - I do think the headers are more clear as they are now, and the preview release cell for Opera can stay at N/A for the time being. --Luinfana (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How about adding a better note or / and a new row to add technical previews? Otherwise we get for a short time editwars and we lost some data... mabdul 0=* 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This would just serve to clutter the table more. Most engines would have the same scores and renderings in a "Development Build" column and a "Technical Previews" column, anyway, and it's probably not very clear to most readers what the difference between the two terms is. I believe it's fine as it is now - "Preview Releases" is a suitable title. Let's keep clarity, simplicity, and readability in mind as we make edits and suggestions concerning this article. --Luinfana (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And WinGogi is actually an official preview build from Opera Labs Ufopedia (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What about being pragmatic: put the screenshot of the latest dev build (alpha/beta for IE, weekly for Opera, nightly for Firefox) and for those having specific test/demo build, put a comment under the screenshot saying "There is a test build, called WinGogi, showing 099/100" or "There is a test build from Mozilla, showing 093/100". With a link to it. This will allow to see very quickly what is important: how well the next release will perform, and indicate that work is on-going and give the specific information. 194.6.163.244 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Test 46 and Firefox Nightlies 'regressing' 1 point

Test 46 now reports as failing on Firefox and the score has gone down to 92/100, but this isn't being reported on the front page. But the WG has actually changed the specification and have asked Hixie to change the test which has not been done yet. More details here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462971 and here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Nov/0001.html --Zurtex (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Origin of the name" section unnecessary

I do not think that the inclusion of the name origin section is strictly necessary, and even if it is, it contains glaring errors. Since when was "Acid3" short for "Acid test #3"? Google reveals no results, other than the article itself. CHL (aka yse) (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a useful addition to the article. I for one thought until reading it that the "Acid" name alluded to the substance used while creating the Acid1 test... And how is what you cite a "glaring error"? Acid3 obviously does stand for Acid test number three. (Rklz2 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

It does, but it certainly isn't a shortening of that. CHL (aka yse) (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Konqueror stable screenshot and information

In "Screen­shot of Current Release" or KHTML(Konqueror), the image shows 76/100, but the label shows "080/100". Shouldn't one of them be updated/fixed to be consistent?Luiscubal (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. -Luinfana (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

why is the test not usable without javascript?

I think that this is not very friendly to people who have javascript disabled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.35.216 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's mainly a test of how well a browser handles JavaScript and the DOM. How can you test that if you have JavaScript disabled? -- Schapel (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Colours, Fails Acid3?

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Acid3_reference_webkitr30069.png Webkit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Webkit_Acid_3_Test_Results.png

Clearly, none of the colours in the image are the same. I am assuming this is because the person who took the screenshot has certain effects turned on in their window manager. Nevertheless, a new screenshot should be created. 80.7.69.12 (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can only see that the purple is different. the rest seems to be same... --mabdul 0=* 09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the colours in Fireworks. The reference has #C0C0C0 for gray (Acid3 text shadow), #F00 for red, #FFA500 for orange, #FF0 for yellow, #0F0 for green, #00F for blue and #800080 for purple. The webkit image has #CACACA for gray, same as reference for red, yellow, green and blue, #FFB300 for orange and #910091 for purple. The Firefox image does the same thing as the reference. I will get a new screenshot. nneonneo ^talk 17:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. nneonneo ^talk 17:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Chromium fails the acid3-test

Chromium says 100/100 but the result I get is not the same as the reference:
- Chromium shows incorrectly "LINKTEST FAILED".
- The grey shadow of "Acid3" is missing.
213.10.195.214 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure you are using the same build of Chromium referenced in the article. Luinfana (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My results for that build are the same as for the latest build. There really seems to be a problem with the linktest. Chromium also fails another test: http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html It probably has something to do with: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22131 213.10.195.214 (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Opera 10.0 alpha

Opera 10.0 alpha just released with its new Presto 2.2 rendering engine, and it is the FIRST public browser to nail the acid3 test. YEAH!
Maybe someone should put this on the wikipedia article
20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Safari 4 has fully passed for months. Opera 10 still doesn't pass the performance aspect of the test yet. That should be clarified in the article. -- Schapel (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Safari 4 Developer Preview, which scores 100/100 in Acid3, was released much earlier than Opera 10.0 alpha 1. And nope neither Safari 4 DP nor Opera 10.0 alpha 1 fully pass Acid3, they both fail the smoothness criteria. Ufopedia (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Safari 4 has fully passed Acid3 since September 25, 2008: http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/ -- Schapel (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not Safari 4, but WebKit nightly. You can use WebKit nightly with Safari 3 to pass Acid3 too, so does that mean Safari 3 passes Acid3? Clearly no. Thus Safari 4 DP does not pass Acid3 neither.Ufopedia (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ufopedia; also it should be noted that neither Opera 10 Alpha nor Safari 4 DP are "public browsers;" they are unstable development releases and should (as they are now) be classed as such in the article. Luinfana (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They are classified as development browsers. When stable versions are released, they will be listed as passing the Acid3 test, in a section that does not exist yet (or is currently commented out). I've tried before to make edits to clarify the situation, and then the table becomes a mess again. Should I try to clarify yet again? -- Schapel (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Article error

There's an error in 'Desktop browsers' chart: at the last column of Gecko row, it says 'Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 and...' but Firefox 3.1 are in Beta 1 status as of Today (6 December, 2008) and Beta 2 is expected to be released within a few days from now. I cannot correct the article myself, as i don't know, which browser version was tested... Hardzsi (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's supposed to mean Firefox 3.1b3pre, but then I think svn snapshots should not be put there as Preview Release anyway? Ufopedia (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest nightly version of Firefox is 3.2a1pre for the trunk and 3.1b3pre for the 3.1 branch. Either way, neither require the use of svn and are available by HTTP. --Execvator (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said it requires svn, but that those are svn snapshots. And since last time the column was renamed from "development builds" to "preview release", I don't know if those can classify as "preview release" here.Ufopedia (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that not a preview (it shows what's going to come)? What exactly do you consider to be the requirement for a release, an announcement? --Execvator (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See this and this, apparently nightly builds are not classified preview releases but development builds here, at least that's what the last column header change implied, since Opera weekly snapshots and WebKit nightly builds were no longer included in the table after the column header change. Ufopedia (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I guess preview release means this in wikipedia. Ufopedia (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes in an article on the browser itself the latest stable beta should be counted as the preview release. Though in the context of ACID3, the latest build that shows what the next stable release of the browser is going to look like would be a better choice, as I see it. Which in the case of Firefox would be the 3.1 branch. --Execvator (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So did you read this discussion here in this page that I have linked? Well, if you think that is the case, then BE BOLD. Like I said, last time the column header changed from development builds to Preview Releases, the Opera weekly snapshots, Opera Gogi build, and Webkit nightly builds got removed from the table, and there was kind of an "edit war" there. Also strictly speaking "the next stable release" of the Firefox browser will be Firefox 3.0.5. Anyway if that's how you see it, feel free to edit it yourself, this is wikipedia after all Ufopedia (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)