Talk:Comparison of web browsers

Update to add Microsoft Edge

As I’m a member of the Edge team, I can not edit this page myself due to COI, but I’d like to request the following changes to update this page to the current situation.

Extended content

Operating Systems Support Add new row in table for Edge i: Browser Windows OS X Linux BSD Androidt iOS Other Unix Microsoft Edge Included No No No No No No Source: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-edge Browser features Update Microsoft Edge row: Browser Bookmark management Download management Password managing Form managing Spell checking Search engine toolbar Per-site security configuration Privacy mode Auto-updater Microsoft Edge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial No Yes Yes For auto-update it is the same deal as IE, so the note there should perhaps be made more generalised to reference both. Main difference is that there is no opt-out in Edge like there is in the IE about dialog. Accessibility features Add a row for Edge: Browser Tabbed browsing Popup-blocking Incremental search Ad filtering Page zooming Full text search of history content-modal dialogs Microsoft Edge Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No ACID Scores Add Yes to Acid 1 column. HTML5 support Update to Browser HTML5test score Microsoft Edge 13 458/555 Source: http://html5test.com/s/9abc972b83228a4f.html Web technology support Add Edge to table: Browser CSS2.1 Frames Nav LINKs  XSLT XHTML 1.0 XHTML 1.1 MathML XForms Web Forms 2.0 VoiceXML / X+V SMIL VML CSS Presentation / projection mode Microsoft Edge Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No VML was dropped from Edge: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/06/a-break-from-the-past-part-2-saying-goodbye-to-activex-vbscript-attachevent/ Web Forms 2: this is no longer relevant as WF2 became HTML5 (along with Web Apps 1.0) over 10 years ago, but Edge does support large parts of what was WF2, such as the various date controls (the HTML5test link above shows this). Chrome should also be set to yes, as we both support at least as much of that spec as Firefox, which is listed as Yes. In general, it is beyond the scope of this edit request, but this table could be updated with more relevant standards to today's web, such as HTML5, WebGL, Canvas, etc, rather than things like Web Forms 2, VML; frames, and CSS projection (both the latter which are deprecated: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features and http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaqueries-4/#media-types Plugins and syndicated content support Edge needs to be added to this list with No's across the board. Gears should be listed as No in Chrome as they dropped NPAPI and Gears in general was deprecated 4 years ago, so it probably isn't supported in any other modern browser either. JavaScript support Edge needs added here with Yes across the board, except partial for DOM3. This could also do with including some more modern standards like ES5, ES6 (ES2015), ES7 (ES2016) etc., but this is also beyond this request. Protocol support Needs Edge added: Browser HTTP FTP  NNTP SSL EV IRC Gopher IDN data:URI BitTorrent IPv6 Proxy HTTP/2 Microsoft Edge Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Image format support Needs Edge added: Browser JPEG JPEG 2000 JPEG XR WebP GIF PNG APNG MNG TIFF SVG PDF 2D Canvas XMB BMP ICO Microsoft Edge Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Partial No Yes No Yes Yes Internationalisation Windows 10 (which Edge is part of supports the following languages by default: Arabic (Saudi Arabia), Bulgarian (Bulgaria), Chinese (Simplified, China), Chinese (Hong Kong), Chinese (Traditional, Taiwan), Croatian (Croatia), Czech (Czech Republic), Danish (Denmark), Dutch (Netherlands), English (United Kingdom), English (United States), Estonian (Estonia), Finnish (Finland), French (France), French (Canada), German (Germany), Greek (Greece), Hebrew (Israel), Hungarian (Hungary), Italian (Italy), Japanese (Japan), Korean (Korea), Latvian (Latvia), Lithuanian (Lithuania), Norwegian, Bokmål (Norway), Polish (Poland), Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Romanian (Romania), Russian (Russia), Serbian (Latin, Serbia), Slovak (Slovakia), Slovenian (Slovenia), Spanish (Spain, International Sort), Spanish (Mexico), Swedish (Sweden), Thai (Thailand), Turkish (Turkey), Ukrainian (Ukraine) https://www.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/windows-10-specifications#langs Other languages are available as language packs (to keep the default size lower): http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/language-packs#lptabs=win10

Completed as far as I can see, please let us know if anything has been missed Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility Question...?

I'm not seeing anything about this in the accessibility features. Which ones are free from flashing and have tools to block animation, zooming, etc.? Are any free from flashing? Which ones are accessible for people with photosensitive epilepsy? migraines? sensory processing disorder? Are any? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Some of the other setions list which standards, scripts, and formats the browsers support, but not which ones they allow users to block. Some of these formats, such as animated gifs, can be extremely painful, can trigger migraines, and/or can trigger seizures. The ability to block these can be an important accessibility feature. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't display properly.

I'm currently using Firefox with increased font sizes. The tables stretch off the edge of the screen. I've tried using reader view. The article doesn't show. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Acid Tests? Why?

What is the point of the Acid tests? To determine whether the browser can enable every misfeature out there? Is there another test to see if the browser allows users to disable the misfeatures? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Discontinued? browsers

On 3 Dec. 2015, Tim@ marked 6 browsers, discontinued. The article pages of 4 of them, ELinks, OmniWeb, Uzbl, & w3m don’t mention being discontinued or anything similar. Is he wrong about those browsers or has no one gotten around to updating those article pages?

Good catch. Uzbl must have been an accident as it's still being actively developed. I think the authors of ELinks and w3m probably regard their browsers as "finished" not "discontinued" as they are minimalist. From the author of w3m:

As w3m's virtues are its small size and rendering speed, adding more features might lose these advantages.

And as Wiktionary defines the word as "no longer available", OmniWeb can't really be considered to be discontinued either as they have a big download link on their website. And they made a preview release 7 months ago, so who knows maybe they're still actively working on it. --holizz (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)