AFAIK, that article is about Acid3 and Webkit. BHpaddock wanted to see proof of the claim that the IE8 team only passed Acid2 because they implemented exactly what was needed to pass the test, instead of just supporting the standards.
yeah saw that after the fact. don't post and drink at the same time;)
It should be noted in the race to Acid 3. and for that matter webkit's race to acid 2.
The groups, webkit and opera(closed source but some info was given during the race) broke down each of the Tests and fixed areas or implemented areas of specs to pass Acid 3.
Also there is no modern browser that Fully implements css 2.1 or that matter HTML 4.x completely per the specs. Again there is No Modern browser that fully implements the specs 100%.
So in that statement any browser that passes acid 2, picked and chose the parts of the spec to pass that part of the specs. Acid tests are not a test to ensure a browser fully implements a given spec. but a given portion of the specs that certain groups determine
would be nice to have between browsers to ensure a given site behaves the same.
As a matter of fact just implementing the portions of CSS and error handleing (which for the most part is how do we say, poorly speced out in the specs) doesn't mean a whole lot.
Watching the Dialog with MS after they turned in the Unit tests for CSS, showed how poorly some of the specs was worded. and how much lee way was given to the implementations to interpret.
although it is nice to see MS comeing full force to implementing a HTML browser with CSS standards. It would be nice to see that implementation move to an XHTML browser with support for other technologies.
and those that State Silverlight would be threaten with SVG obviously have not played in both realms before. Granted both are vector based platforms that is about where the simularities stop.