IE fuckup



  • [rant]
    Why is it always that after hours of designing and tweaking of a website, it looks decent in Firefox/Chrome but when you load it in IE that it is completely fucked up.
    And of course IE 6+ has to be supported since that is what is running on the clients machine..
    Me wants to cry :'(
    [/rant]



  • So tell them to upgrade their fucking browsers. If they're stuck on XP they can at least go to IE8, which isn't perfect but is miles better than IE6. If they're stuck on pre-XP Windows... run for the hills, boy.

    If they "can't" (won't) update IE, they're probably a rinky-dink organisation without a proper (competent) IT department, in which case you'll end up doing their tech support for them. In other words, they're a client you don't want.

    Seriously I'm sick of seeing posts about IE6. It's an organisational problem, not a developer problem. The onus must be on organisations to fix this problem.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    So tell them to upgrade their fucking browsers. If they're stuck on XP they can at least go to IE8, which isn't perfect but is miles better than IE6. If they're stuck on pre-XP Windows, run for the hills, boy.

    If they "can't" (won't) update IE, they're probably a rinky-dink organisation without a proper (competent) IT department, in which case you'll end up doing their tech support for them. In other words, they're a client you don't want.

    if they are paying you money to make it work with IE6, unfortunately, you better do it.



    they write your company's paycheck, which surprise surprise, lets them write yours. You can tell them they are a moron and should upgrade, but ultimately if they pay for it, you do it.



    what your company SHOULD have done, was say "Supporting IE6 requires almost as much work as making the entire website twice, as such, we can offer you this for this (80% over stated) price, or at an 80% discount if you wish to cut the IE6 compatibility requirements." Money talks, and deep discounts talk in a language thats more convincing than telling them they are morons every 5 minutes ever will be.



  • This is what chrome frame was invented for.

    I agree with Algorythimics, they are paying your cheque and if the agreed requirements of the website was IE6+ compatibility ... well you gotta suck it up.



  • IE6 is 12 years old already. You might just as well require it to run on Netscape 6 (shudder).



  • @Algorythmics said:

    Money talks, and deep discounts talk in a language thats more convincing than telling them they are morons every 5 minutes ever will be.

    I was making the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the OP/his superiors didn't talk that particular talk, otherwise he wouldn't be in this situation. (In my defence, he didn't give much information to go on.) I agree 100% that when you present IE6 vs no IE6 as a cost/benefit analysis, most sane companies will see the error of their ways.

    My bitching about clients who can't/won't upgrade from IE6 was, as I noted, focused at... lower-end organisations that don't have functional IT departments. Not because they don't update, but because invariably every support call they log will boil down to something along the lines of "the system is slow" and then you spend an entire day troubleshooting only to find one of their "enterprising" employee has appropriated their server's bandwidth to download porn. Or the user has 50 toolbars installed in IE. Or their "server" is an XP box with 256MB RAM. These are not clients, they are time sinks; any money you make selling your software to them, you'll lose by being their tech support personnel.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    So tell them to upgrade their fucking browsers. If they're stuck on XP they can at least go to IE8, which isn't perfect but is miles better than IE6. If they're stuck on pre-XP Windows... run for the hills, boy.

    If they "can't" (won't) update IE, they're probably a rinky-dink organisation without a proper (competent) IT department, in which case you'll end up doing their tech support for them. In other words, they're a client you don't want.

    Seriously I'm sick of seeing posts about IE6. It's an organisational problem, not a developer problem. The onus must be on organisations to fix this problem.

    Well unfortunately, it looks fucked up on IE 8 as well.. and yes they are stuck on XP boxes.
    So then I am stuck to define another IE specific stylesheet and fiddle around with it until it looks like (more or less) how it should be...

    .. I want weekend........ 😞



  •  Whenever I hear IE specific stylesheet, what this means is "I didn't write valid markup".

     Also if you can't get it to render correctly in IE8 (sans all the newer CSS 3.0 stuff) you have done it wrong.



  • Anymore it's Firefox we have issues with. We'll get something up and it works fine in Chrome and IE 10 and Firefox renders it like a disabled chimp because they're off in the corner, eating glue and getting a hard-on while thinking about how to surpass Google in the browser-version-number-wars.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    So tell them to upgrade their fucking browsers. If they're stuck on XP they can at least go to IE8, which isn't perfect but is miles better than IE6. If they're stuck on pre-XP Windows... run for the hills, boy.

    If they "can't" (won't) update IE, they're probably a rinky-dink organisation without a proper (competent) IT department, in which case you'll end up doing their tech support for them. In other words, they're a client you don't want.

    Seriously I'm sick of seeing posts about IE6. It's an organisational problem, not a developer problem. The onus must be on organisations to fix this problem.

    You're right - it's organisational, but it might not be the customer's organisation that's at fault. The customers that we have who are stuck on IE6 are most definitely not rinky-dink organisations, but are more likely central government or finance organisations and their problem is that they have applications waaaaaaaaaay more important that ours that still rely on IE6fuckedness, ActiveX or some other horrible abomination. Given that these apps keep these organisations going, they are only going to throw IE6 out when the other vendor fixes their mess - they're not going to do it cos we're pissed off.

    Now, of course, you can start ranting about side-by-side installs of Firefox/Chrome, VMs with a decent browser, VDI to a Citrix box or whatever, and that comes down the customer-organisation. The problem is that they pay $$$$$$ to the other vendor, and that vendor mandates IE6. They pay $$ to us and therefore, in their eyes, it's our problem to become compliant with their "standard".

    Having got that rant out the way, most of our problems are now with customers who have managed to get off IE6 but are now entrenched with IE8 and its appalling Javascript performance. "Can't you install Chrome/Firefox?" we ask, and they reply "Hey - you told us to get off IE6 and we've spent two years doing that - you never said IE6 was bad too - it's your javascript so make it faster"



  • @skotl said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    So tell them to upgrade their fucking browsers. If they're stuck on XP they can at least go to IE8, which isn't perfect but is miles better than IE6. If they're stuck on pre-XP Windows... run for the hills, boy.

    If they "can't" (won't) update IE, they're probably a rinky-dink organisation without a proper (competent) IT department, in which case you'll end up doing their tech support for them. In other words, they're a client you don't want.

    Seriously I'm sick of seeing posts about IE6. It's an organisational problem, not a developer problem. The onus must be on organisations to fix this problem.

    You're right - it's organisational, but it might not be the customer's organisation that's at fault. The customers that we have who are stuck on IE6 are most definitely not rinky-dink organisations, but are more likely central government or finance organisations and their problem is that they have applications waaaaaaaaaay more important that ours that still rely on IE6fuckedness, ActiveX or some other horrible abomination. Given that these apps keep these organisations going, they are only going to throw IE6 out when the other vendor fixes their mess - they're not going to do it cos we're pissed off.

    Why? You can inject X-UA-COMPATIBLE headers at the IIS/Apache level. Problem Fucking Solved

    Edit: By "You", I meant the organization or the vendor, not you specifically



  • @mott555 said:

    Anymore it's Firefox we have issues with. We'll get something up and it works fine in Chrome and IE 10 and Firefox renders it like a disabled chimp because they're off in the corner, eating glue and getting a hard-on while thinking about how to surpass Google in the browser-version-number-wars.

    That's probably the most accurate description I've read yet. Firefox devs need to get off the one-line-change-is-a-new-major-version train and back onto the make-shit-work-properly train. If IE renders shit better than your browser, you have a problem.

    @skotl said:

    @The_Assimilator said:

    So tell them to upgrade their fucking browsers. If they're stuck on XP they can at least go to IE8, which isn't perfect but is miles better than IE6. If they're stuck on pre-XP Windows... run for the hills, boy.

    If they "can't" (won't) update IE, they're probably a rinky-dink organisation without a proper (competent) IT department, in which case you'll end up doing their tech support for them. In other words, they're a client you don't want.

    Seriously I'm sick of seeing posts about IE6. It's an organisational problem, not a developer problem. The onus must be on organisations to fix this problem.

    You're right - it's organisational, but it might not be the customer's organisation that's at fault. The customers that we have who are stuck on IE6 are most definitely not rinky-dink organisations, but are more likely central government or finance organisations and their problem is that they have applications waaaaaaaaaay more important that ours that still rely on IE6fuckedness, ActiveX or some other horrible abomination. Given that these apps keep these organisations going, they are only going to throw IE6 out when the other vendor fixes their mess - they're not going to do it cos we're pissed off.

    Now, of course, you can start ranting about side-by-side installs of Firefox/Chrome, VMs with a decent browser, VDI to a Citrix box or whatever, and that comes down the customer-organisation. The problem is that they pay $$$$$$ to the other vendor, and that vendor mandates IE6. They pay $$ to us and therefore, in their eyes, it's our problem to become compliant with their "standard".

    Having got that rant out the way, most of our problems are now with customers who have managed to get off IE6 but are now entrenched with IE8 and its appalling Javascript performance. "Can't you install Chrome/Firefox?" we ask, and they reply "Hey - you told us to get off IE6 and we've spent two years doing that - you never said IE6 was bad too - it's your javascript so make it faster"

    I know, I know. Sometimes I like to dream of an ideal world, and then I come to TDWTF and my dreams come crashing down.



  • @skotl said:

    Given that these apps keep these organisations going, they are only going to throw IE6 out when the other vendor fixes their mess
     

    I don't get why MS hasn't jumped all over this opportunity yet. They should make and market some sort of Legacy Application sandbox. They can even name it something Microsofty, like Buisness Jumpoint One Live.

    All they have to do is create a VM. Inside the VM is nothing but IE6 running in full screen mode, and a firewall that restircts all access to anything except these Intranet applications. The VM executable can even be custom named to be the same as the legacy app.

    Push it out to everyone, run a quick training seminar to say "If you need to access Rusty Wheel Accounting App, double click this new icon on your desktop, and there's the app. That's all there is to it. BTW, we've upgraded you all to IE9."

    MS could easily, EASILY justify the R&D costs and have it paid for millions of times over. It should sell itself. "Hey, government IT departments. The cost of deploying and creating a training power point will pay for itself. The labor cost is less than field ten support calls for websites not looking right, or a single support call to clean up a drive-by malware infection."



  • Lorne; great idea but MS want everyone to be on Windows 8, not do anything to prolong the life of Win7, Vista or (shudder) XP



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I don't get why MS hasn't jumped all over this opportunity yet. They should make and market some sort of Legacy Application sandbox. They can even name it something Microsofty, like Buisness Jumpoint One Live.

    It's called the X-UA-COMPATIBLE header.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I don't get why MS hasn't jumped all over this opportunity yet. They should make and market some sort of Legacy Application sandbox. They can even name it something Microsofty, like Buisness Jumpoint One Live.

    All they have to do is create a VM. Inside the VM is nothing but IE6 running in full screen mode, and a firewall that restircts all access to anything except these Intranet applications. The VM executable can even be custom named to be the same as the legacy app.

     

    Behold: http://www.browsium.com/ion/

     



  • @lucas said:

    Behold: http://www.browsium.com/ion/
     

    You can understand that I don't believe that.



  • @keigezellig said:

    [rant]
    Why is it always that after hours of designing and tweaking of a website, it looks decent in Firefox/Chrome but when you load it in IE that it is completely fucked up.
    And of course IE 6+ has to be supported since that is what is running on the clients machine..
    Me wants to cry :'(
    [/rant]

    You need to start using the -ms- incantation alongside -webkit- and -moz-.



  • Wow, people really still support IE6? Hell, I charge a steep markup for IE8 support. Haven't had anyone go for it yet, heh.

    IE9/10 hoses little enough of the page that I generally don't have to waste time dealing with it.



  • Now, I'll admit openly that websites I've used this on are usually low on other JS content so no idea if it won't interfere badly.

    But for layout issues dropping this http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ into a standards-compliant site usually solved it for me.

    (The name has "7" for histerical reasons, it claims to bring IE5-8 to IE9 level thesedays. I was using it back in IE8 era.)



  • @wrack said:

    histerical

    I'm not laughing



  • @Ben L. said:

    @wrack said:
    h[b]y[/b]sterical

    I'm not laughing

    FTFM, danke. And you should laugh, preferably so hard you fall off your chair, suspended above the Grand Canyon.



  • @wrack said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @wrack said:
    hysterical

    I'm not laughing

    FTFM, danke. And you should laugh, preferably so hard you fall off your chair, suspended above the Grand Canyon.

    No, try again.

    The word you're looking for is historical.



  • @Ben L. said:

    The word you're looking for is historical.


    Whoosh.



  • @keigezellig said:

    Well unfortunately, it looks fucked up on IE 8 as well.. and yes they are stuck on XP boxes.
    So then I am stuck to define another IE specific stylesheet and fiddle around with it until it looks like (more or less) how it should be...

    .. I want weekend........ 😞

    It the requirement was for IE6, why weren't you testing in IE6 from day one?

    Our idiot front-end web devs have that same mental issue. I don't get web devs. They have broken brains.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @keigezellig said:
    Well unfortunately, it looks fucked up on IE 8 as well.. and yes they are stuck on XP boxes.
    So then I am stuck to define another IE specific stylesheet and fiddle around with it until it looks like (more or less) how it should be...

    .. I want weekend........ 😞

    It the requirement was for IE6, why weren't you testing in IE6 from day one?

    Our idiot front-end web devs have that same mental issue. I don't get web devs. They have broken brains.

    They have them now?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @keigezellig said:
    Well unfortunately, it looks fucked up on IE 8 as well.. and yes they are stuck on XP boxes. So then I am stuck to define another IE specific stylesheet and fiddle around with it until it looks like (more or less) how it should be... .. I want weekend........ 😞
    It the requirement was for IE6, why weren't you testing in IE6 from day one?

    Our idiot front-end web devs have that same mental issue. I don't get web devs. They have broken brains.

    They have them now?

    Yes, because broken brains are worse than not having one at all.  At least then you could use their heads for storage.



  • @Ben L. said:

    They have them now?
     

    Yes, but they're written in Go. So-- no.



  • @mott555 said:

    Anymore it's Firefox we have issues with. We'll get something up and it works fine in Chrome and IE 10 and Firefox renders it like a disabled chimp because they're off in the corner, eating glue and getting a hard-on while thinking about how to surpass Google in the browser-version-number-wars.

    I remember the first time I wrote standards-compliant code and it looked good in Chrome, Safari and IE9, but FF fucked it up. I wasn't sure whether to feel proud or hopeless.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It the requirement was for IE6, why weren't you testing in IE6 from day one?

    Exactly.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Our idiot front-end web devs have that same mental issue. I don't get web devs. They have broken brains.

    Web devs rarely seem to understand shit like "requirements" or the point of standards..



  • @lucas said:

    if you can't get it to render correctly in IE8 (sans all the newer CSS 3.0 stuff) you have done it wrong.

    I would have agreed until jQuery 2 came out and proudly announced that it does not support IE8.



    I'm no fan of IE but IE7/8 still has more market share than Safari, Opera and a few others combined. jQuery2 will be a huge pain to use for at least a year or two while IE8 users cannot be discarded but new plugins may not work with the "transition" jQuery.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @mott555 said:

    Anymore it's Firefox we have issues with. We'll get something up and it works fine in Chrome and IE 10 and Firefox renders it like a disabled chimp because they're off in the corner, eating glue and getting a hard-on while thinking about how to surpass Google in the browser-version-number-wars.

    I remember the first time I wrote standards-compliant code and it looked good in Chrome, Safari and IE9, but FF fucked it up. I wasn't sure whether to feel proud or hopeless.

    Let's not forget that FF is a bastard child of Netscape 6.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I remember the first time I wrote standards-compliant code and it looked good in Chrome, Safari and IE9, but FF fucked it up. I wasn't sure whether to feel proud or hopeless.

    I've seen this in "gray areas" of the spec, where the behavior really isn't spelled out clearly. Fieldsets and legends in particular reacted to CSS in dramatically different ways between browsers.



  • @Ronald said:

    would have agreed until jQuery 2 came out and proudly announced that it does not support IE8.



    I'm no fan of IE but IE7/8 still has more market share than Safari, Opera and a few others combined. jQuery2 will be a huge pain to use for at least a year or two while IE8 users cannot be discarded but new plugins may not work with the "transition" jQuery.

     

    jQuery 2 is going to API compatible with jQuery 1.9.x (which does support IE6-8) so I am not sure really what the problem will be.

     



  • @SamC said:

    Wow, people really still support IE6? Hell, I charge a steep markup for IE8 support. Haven't had anyone go for it yet, heh.

    IE9/10 hoses little enough of the page that I generally don't have to waste time dealing with it.

     

    If you can't get something working with IE8-10 support without considerable effort, I don't really know what to say other than wtf are you doing? Seriously most of the users are IE9 to 10 and I haven't found anything I can't throw at 10 that it does do ... and if you say shit like WebGL/WebRTC, support for that is spotty at best in Chrome (Certain webcams provide YUV or RGB instead of the one of the other colour spaces so you get a nice solid green image).

    With IE9 you are missing transitions and a couple of other things. Even the jQuery team recently said that IE9 / 10 have less iffy shims put on them compared to other browsers.

    This was the whole point of progressive enhancement movement in the industry, and again web developers have just said "fuck it, I won't do my job properly". Google do it properly, they give you a basic version of google with very little JS but everything is perfectly usable ... if you turn JS off in your browser and use Google or Gmail that is what you are getting in IE6 these days.

     



  • @wrack said:

    Now, I'll admit openly that websites I've used this on are usually low on other JS content so no idea if it won't interfere badly.

    But for layout issues dropping this http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ into a standards-compliant site usually solved it for me.

    (The name has "7" for histerical reasons, it claims to bring IE5-8 to IE9 level thesedays. I was using it back in IE8 era.)
     

     The main things I tend to come across is not the lack of support, it is the lack of performance. Lack of support can be fixed with a Shim, just got to MDN and there is cross browser shims for various functions. Lack of performance is far harder to solve.

     With JS heavy pages and older browsers you gotta do more old school performance tricks.

    Recently with IE7 I had to unroll a loop to get stuff to go fast. I tried a lot of other stuff and it didn't work, so for IE7 I just unrolled the loop and I got 8 times the performance out of it. Luckily IE7 user share on the website I work on has gone below 1.5.

     With more advanced effects, I just leave the website tidy and usable e.g. fade-in/fade-out becomes show/hide. The bootstrap library is an example of a library that does it right ... all the fancy shit doesn't work, you can still use it.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @lucas said:

    most of the users are IE9 to 10 and I haven't found anything I can't throw at 10 that it does do

    Border-image. By their not supporting this, I won't be able to use it until IE10 end-of-life, probably in a decade.



  • @Ronald said:

    Let's not forget that FF is a bastard child of Netscape 6.

    Um.. maybe? They both came from the Mozilla suite--Netscape 6 was mostly a re-brand, whereas Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox tried to ditch the bloat of the Mozilla suite and just focus on the browser.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @lucas said:
    most of the users are IE9 to 10 and I haven't found anything I can't throw at 10 that it does do

    Border-image. By their not supporting this, I won't be able to use it until IE10 end-of-life, probably in a decade.

     

     Of course you will be able to use it. The thing is that designs and layouts should be able to be progressively enhanced i.e. the design and the functionality should work with such an aestestic feature missing such as border radius, border-image, transitions etc,  they should be visual flair. It is an out of date concept (and also totally impossible) that a web app/site should look exactly the same across browser, it is impossible even with desktop operating system (e.g. font rendering technologies are different between Mac OS, Windows and Linux). Make it work across browser with the important functionality and then add the bells and whistles

     Why should someone on IE6 not be able to submit a form to a web browser, or view an image? This stuff should just work.

    Also there is a good reason why IE team haven't been implementing these features, there is a video here. It basically comes down to, because the got burnt implementing a draft standard before, they will only implement features once they are set in stone. The guy is an evangelist but it becomes immediately obvious he is treading the right line between the corp he is representing and actual honesty.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @lucas said:

     Of course you will be able to use it. The thing is that designs and layouts should be able to be progressively enhanced i.e. the design and the functionality should work with such an aestestic feature missing such as border radius, border-image, transitions etc,  they should be visual flair. It is an out of date concept (and also totally impossible) that a web app/site should look exactly the same across browser, it is impossible even with desktop operating system (e.g. font rendering technologies are different between Mac OS, Windows and Linux). Make it work across browser with the important functionality and then add the bells and whistles

    If it's not (nearly, as far as font-renderings) pixel-perfect in every supported browser (IE8+, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, iPad), it's failed at QA and sent back to development. Guess which one of the supported browsers takes most of my time.

    A year and a half ago our baseline was IE6. I practically broke out cheering when we got approval to move forward (I still occasionally get IE6 defects, which I cheerfully mark WONTFIX... unless it blocks functionality somehow).



  • @lucas said:

    Also there is a good reason why IE team haven't been implementing these features, there is a video here. It basically comes down to, because the got burnt implementing a draft standard before, they will only implement features once they are set in stone.

    And why shouldn't they? The W3C is really the problem here; not the IE team.

    Well, not anymore. There was a period of 3-4 years there where the IE team was the problem. But that's long past.



  • @lucas said:

    The thing is that designs and layouts should be able to be progressively enhanced...

    Some are, some don't need to be. Depends on the requirements.

    @lucas said:

    Why should someone on IE6 not be able to submit a form to a web browser, or view an image? This stuff should just work.

    But at the same time, why should resources be spent trying to build an entirely new site for IE6 because the real site uses advanced features? It's a business decision, of course, but I haven't had to support IE6 since late 2008. We decided it wasn't worth the resources to make a backwards-compatible version of the site. And some things don't work by progressive enhancement--like when the entire app is rendered in JS.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    W3C

    People get on IE for not following the specs, but rarely seem to care that half the time the W3C can't even get a coherent spec out the door, and that's the easy part.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Some are, some don't need to be. Depends on the requirements.

    100% agree Requiremens is everything.

    @lucas said:

    But at the same time, why should resources be spent trying to build an entirely new site for IE6 because the real site uses advanced features? It's a business decision, of course, but I haven't had to support IE6 since late 2008. We decided it wasn't worth the resources to make a backwards-compatible version of the site. And some things don't work by progressive enhancement--like when the entire app is rendered in JS.

    I totally agree. It isn't worth me making the website IE6 compatible for the 6 users that don't place bets (I work on a Gambling Website).

     I might have sounded a bit black and white about the subject. I mainly work on what people would say are websites, and not web applications. I tend to make a little bit of effort making sure that things works with JS turned off (where-ever possible) or at least warn the user that they can't use the website. I make sure things work, even if they of clunky (as I said before ... show/hide vs fade in/fade out as a trite example).

     



  • @lucas said:

    I might have sounded a bit black and white about the subject. I mainly work on what people would say are websites, and not web applications. I tend to make a little bit of effort making sure that things works with JS turned off (where-ever possible) or at least warn the user that they can't use the website. I make sure things work, even if they of clunky (as I said before ... show/hide vs fade in/fade out as a trite example).

    Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

    For myself, I work on either webapps or web sites where there's no expectation that things will work without JS. All rendering is done in JS and data is requested over AJAX, so it's simply not possible to use without JS. And for our business, it's not worth coding another version of our site.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And why shouldn't they? The W3C is really the problem here; not the IE team.

    Well, not anymore. There was a period of 3-4 years there where the IE team was the problem. But that's long past.

     

    I agree, I wasn't saying anything against the IE team. I think they are doing it the correct way for their corporate users. I think the video describes their strategy better than I can (even though it is worth skipping through to important things).

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    For myself, I work on either webapps or web sites where there's no expectation that things will work without JS. All rendering is done in JS and data is requested over AJAX, so it's simply not possible to use without JS. And for our business, it's not worth coding another version of our site.
     

     The requirements are totally different between what I do and what you do and as we agree that is the important thing, satisfying the requirements.



  • @lucas said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    For myself, I work on either webapps or web sites where there's no expectation that things will work without JS. All rendering is done in JS and data is requested over AJAX, so it's simply not possible to use without JS. And for our business, it's not worth coding another version of our site.
     

     The requirements are totally different between what I do and what you do and as we agree that is the important thing, satisfying the requirements.

    You must be French.



  •  I live in Spain ... is that close enough?



  • @lucas said:

     I live in Spain ... is that close enough?

    Yes, a lot of cultural traits are shared across the Euro zone, like monkey dancing but pulling back if the other party does not immediately give up.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.