Instead of spot testing websites, going for a subset of web platform tests (wpt) would be nice. Wpt is a shared test suite with test cases for most web specifications and all browsers run them in CI. https://wpt.fyi/ has results and also links for live testing.
Most of these are pages that blur the line between “document” and “app”, containing many interactive controls. Being concerned about them is valid; however, I think the concern is misplaced at this stage.
For an independent engine, I’m more interested in simple “web documents”. Those need to work well before tackling “Web 2.0” territory. Specifically: articles progressively enhanced with images, stylesheets, and maybe a script or two. Understanding how well Web 2.0 sites render isn’t really useful to me without first understanding how well documents render.
When testing my site, my main pain points are: a lack of support for <details>, misplaced <figcaption> elements, my SVG profile photo not rendering (it renders when I open it in a new tab), and occasional overlapping text. The only non-mainstream independent engine I know of that supports <details> is Servo.
Doesn’t work unfortunately. Looks like the ciphers Serenity supports don’t intersect with the ones your site supports:
79.380 WebContent(44:44): ResourceLoader: Starting load of: "https://xeiaso.net/"
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): We were alerted of a critical error: 40 (HandshakeFailure)
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): Possible failure cause(s):
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): - No cipher suite in common with xeiaso.net
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): Consumed an error: -1
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): consume error: -1
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): Possible failure cause(s):
79.537 RequestServer(48:48): - No one knows.
79.541 RequestServer(48:48): ConnectionCache: Connection to https://xeiaso.net/ failed: HandshakeFailure
Instead of spot testing websites, going for a subset of web platform tests (wpt) would be nice. Wpt is a shared test suite with test cases for most web specifications and all browsers run them in CI. https://wpt.fyi/ has results and also links for live testing.
Most of these are pages that blur the line between “document” and “app”, containing many interactive controls. Being concerned about them is valid; however, I think the concern is misplaced at this stage.
For an independent engine, I’m more interested in simple “web documents”. Those need to work well before tackling “Web 2.0” territory. Specifically: articles progressively enhanced with images, stylesheets, and maybe a script or two. Understanding how well Web 2.0 sites render isn’t really useful to me without first understanding how well documents render.
When testing my site, my main pain points are: a lack of support for
<details>, misplaced<figcaption>elements, my SVG profile photo not rendering (it renders when I open it in a new tab), and occasional overlapping text. The only non-mainstream independent engine I know of that supports<details>is Servo.POSSE note from https://seirdy.one/notes/2022/07/08/re-trying-real-websites-in-the-serenityos-browser/
One thing I like about Apple is their commitment to making the website accessible. It’s completely usable, if ugly. Really, it should have a 5/5.
How does my site work in that browser? I’ve been curious about SerenityOS but not enough to build it from source.
Doesn’t work unfortunately. Looks like the ciphers Serenity supports don’t intersect with the ones your site supports: