[agust]

Interop is only a tiny subset of the entire suite of WPT tests, and it only contains tests that all vendors agreed upon, so no browser will look bad in Interop.

If you look at the full WPT test suite [1], you'll see that Safari is by far the one failing the biggest number of tests, i.e. the most buggy browser.

The Safari team likes to use Interop to trick people into thinking Safari is as good as the others. It's just a PR play.

[1] https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=experimental&label=master&ali...

[CharlesW]

For a less biased result, use Stable: https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&label=stable&aligned

> If you look at the full WPT test suite [1], you'll see that Safari is by far the one failing the biggest number of tests, i.e. the most buggy browser.

In Safari's case, most WPT test fails mean "hasn't been implemented yet".

> Interop is only a tiny subset of the entire suite of WPT tests, and it only contains tests that all vendors agreed upon…

Exactly. If you're happy building "Works with Chrome" web apps, Safari is not for you.

[agust]

"Browser-specific failures are the number of WPT tests which fail in exactly one browser." From wpt.fyi

In other terms, WPT test failures for Safari means Safari has bugs or unsupported features that both Firefox and Chrome do not have.

As for Interop, it focuses on a specific, very limited areas, like "scrolling" or "subgrid" and is in no way representative of the overall feature set of a browser.

So no, contrary to what you're implying, it's not that Chrome is too advanced, or doing too much, it's really Safari that is buggy and lagging behind both Chrome and Firefox (by a lot).

[CharlesW]

> In other terms, WPT test failures for Safari means Safari has bugs or unsupported features that both Firefox and Chrome do not have.

Yep! Safari is not the browser for people who need cutting-edge features, especially not for ones still at the proposal stage.