Fucking Browser Incompatability

[oracle]

I've just switched my dad over from Internet Explorer, to another browser. Which browser it is isn't relevant to my rant.

I fucking hate having to explain to him why he still needs to use IE for some sites because some shitty little thing doesn't work properly. My reasoning to him basically comes down to this: The little shit-faced cock-gobbler that made the site, was too fucking retarted to test for cross-compatability. Don't these fucktards realise that they're limiting their audience? The sooner MS is forced to remove non-WC3-compliant features from IE, the happier the world will be, because then maybe webdesigners will have to be forced to make a page that actually works! This will also (hopefully) weed out all the lousy good-for-nuthin crappy knob-jockeys who call themselves "web-designers" but couldn't even design a feasable method to get their cranium out of their rectal cavity!

From my very first page I ever made in year 10, I've always checked for cross-compatability (and different resolutions.) It was one of the first things we were taught, ffs! If anyone reading this is responsable for a site that doesn't display properly outside of IE... then you sir, deserve to be bound and gagged, and bent over the fence of a paddock full of bulls, then sprayed with highly potent pheromones... Hoes do you like that for "incompatability" motherfucker!

:swear:

Edit: Spelling.

[utopian]

I have opened up pages from sites that load their front pages properly, but then you go to try and load a different page from the same site and it's just a blank white page.

It's another example of microsoft creating their own standards based on what they think things should be like, rather than adhering to the standards which have been founded based on the capabilities.

Microsoft have made some good stuff, but Internet Explorer falls short.

Can anyone tell me when the W3C standards were founded, and what stage of development IE was at? I remember back in the mid-90s, pages wouldn't display in IE, but they would in Netscape, and vice versa. There were even HTML tags that browsers wouldn't even recognise.

I look forward to an age when W3C compatibility is one feature that people a) look for in a browser, and b) code into a browser.

[thingy]

W3C standard html is very basic compared to what IE is able to do with its proprietry tags. The reason why IE wouldn't load on many sites in the past is because Netscape dominated so most sites used netscape proprietry tags. Then when the browser wars heated up people would make two or three versions of a site, one with Netscape proprietry, one with IE proprietry, and one with standard which was never as good as the other two. Finally IE took over and now most sites are IE proprietry only.

[Misao]

I have to work on stuff that is only compatible with IE, but then we know that our audience is using IE. They are mostly internal users, and the externally available version is used by corporations, and the business don't care if it is not multi-browser compatible. Therefore, the inherited system we have to work on does not receive budget to allow for refactoring, so we can't do it.
Sometimes sucks but no biggie depending on your audience. If you are aiming at large corporations a value-add web-based app, i don't think it matters much if it only works in IE.

Point being that is comes down the intended audience I think, and whether you have control over your user-base.

Utop: I have opened up pages from sites that load their front pages properly, but then you go to try and load a different page from the same site and it's just a blank white page.

That is usually caused by someone screwing up their tables. No excuse for that really .... I am constantly fixing up other peoples misuse of tables at work .. annoying, but has to be done to prevent that sorta stuff.