IE fuckup



  • @Ronald said:

    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.
     

     

    Hey that's not fair, the Catholic Church was the one that demanded they pull out.

     



  • @BC_Programmer said:

    @Ronald said:

    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.
     

     

    Hey that's not fair, the Catholic Church was the one that demanded they pull out.

     

    Wrong. The Catholic Church offers two alternatives: abstinence or marriage. This whole pulling out thing is a conspiracy led by women who pretend it's to avoid pregnancy while in fact they just don't want to go muck-scraping while the guy is falling asleep.



  • @Ronald said:

    @BC_Programmer said:

    @Ronald said:

    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.
     

     

    Hey that's not fair, the Catholic Church was the one that demanded they pull out.

     

    Wrong. The Catholic Church offers two alternatives: abstinence or marriage. This whole Christianity thing is a conspiracy led by a woman who pretended that she got pregnant as a virgin because she didn't want to tell anyone who she banged.


    FTFY



  • I was about to make a new thread for this but I guess this place is good enough.

     

    When I right-click on a picture in IE10, I get a menu that lets me (among other things) send the picture by email, set it as the wallpaper or open the "My Pictures" folder, but there is NO way to just open that picture in a new tab.



  • @spamcourt said:

    When I right-click on a picture in IE10, I get a menu that lets me (among other things) send the picture by email, set it as the wallpaper or open the "My Pictures" folder, but there is NO way to just open that picture in a new tab.

    The horror...



  • @Ben L. said:

    @Ronald said:
    @BC_Programmer said:

    @Ronald said:

    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.
     

     

    Hey that's not fair, the Catholic Church was the one that demanded they pull out.

     

    Wrong. The Catholic Church offers two alternatives: abstinence or marriage. This whole Christianity thing is a conspiracy led by a woman who pretended that she got pregnant as a virgin because she didn't want to tell anyone who she banged.


    FTFY

    You know that there are variations on that story depending on what breed of Christians you talk to. Catholic and Orthodox are usually Virgin Mary believers but some other Christians believe that she was the mother of Jesus but not a virgin. The thing is that only 2 of the 4 gospels actually mention that part about Mary being a virgin, and those two gospels (Matthew and Luke) are heavily based on the Mark gospel which itself makes no mention of this (so where does this come from? who knows). The concept is also totally absent from John's gospel which is the latest and more spiritual.



    To put it more simply:



    Forks in the Geek Religion
    Unix ->Minix ->Linux ->Android
      ->NeXT ->OS/X ->iOS
    Forks in Mel Gibson's Religion
    Jesus preaching (alleged)* ->Mark's gospel ->Matthew and Luke gospels ->Acts of the Apostles
      ->John's gospel ->Saul of Tarsus ->Martin Luther




    The Virgin Mary is a concept that came up in the Matthew/Luke fork.


    • I am not a Christian but got most of my intel from TTC or Bart Ehrman


  •  @lucas said:

    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).

    The last few sites I did, I coded looking at them only in Firefox. I then checked it in Chrome- Flawless. Opera? Flawless. New-Opera? Safari on iPad? The apparently-nameless Android browser? Ok, so those are all still Webkit, so they all look exactly the same as Chrome- Flawless. Even testing several versions back, its still flawless. Even Firefox 3.6 (what are we on now, Firefox 87²⁶?), while a tad glitchy, is still very passable.

    What about IE? Versions 9 and 10? Theres some bits missing (placeholder=, anyone?), and a few adjacent elements are inexplicably misaligned by one pixel, and the edges of some stuff look kind of jaggy, but nobody's gonna frett about that. And yes, the WebGL stuff doesn't work at all, but thats not critical and it doesn't run on older machines anyway.

    Version 8? Its completely fucked.

    Could I fix it? Possibly. But why? Yes, IE6-8 still hang on to some market share. But it's little enough that it simply isn't worth my time when everything works fine, with no extra effort, in every single other browser.



  • @SamC said:

    The last few sites I did, I coded looking at them only in Firefox.

    @SamC said:

    Version 8? Its completely fucked.

    But if the requirement included IE8, why the fuck weren't you testing in IE8 from day one?

    THIS IS THE PART I STILL DON'T GET WHY DO ALL WEB DEVELOPERS MAKE THIS MISTAKE WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU WHAT THE FUCK.

    Imagine a desktop developer doing this: "well it looked ok in Linux, but when we tested it in Windows it was all wonky! Yeah. Yeah Windows was in the requirements. Yeah from day one. No, I never bothered to look until 2 days before release." You would rightly call him a fucking moron.

    But in the web developer world, it's seen as "normal".



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @SamC said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    @SamC said:
    The requirement for the software to be functional was added at the last minute.

    The last minute? The functionality requirements have been in there since day one!

    Yeah, but nobody told me I actually had to DO stuff!

    I have a nice empty cardboard box for you. You can put your things in it because YOU'RE FIRED!



  • @SamC said:

    Yes, IE6-8 still hang on to some market share.

    If by "some" you mean "nearly a third"..

    @SamC said:

    ...it simply isn't worth my time when everything works fine, with no extra effort, in every single other browser.

    Well, if it's your job, then you're a pretty shitty employee. But from your attitude, you sound like you mostly develop for a crappy FOSS project nobody uses.


    I gotta wonder about web developers.. "You expect me to actually do work?? Wahh!"



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You would rightly call him a fucking moron.

    But in the web developer world, it's seen as "normal".

    I don't see that as a contradiction.



  • @SamC said:

    The last few sites I did, I coded looking at them only in Firefox. I then checked it in Chrome- Flawless. Opera? Flawless. New-Opera? Safari on iPad? The apparently-nameless Android browser? Ok, so those are all still Webkit, so they all look exactly the same as Chrome- Flawless. Even testing several versions back, its still flawless. Even Firefox 3.6 (what are we on now, Firefox 87²⁶?), while a tad glitchy, is still very passable.

    What about IE? Versions 9 and 10? Theres some bits missing (placeholder=, anyone?), and a few adjacent elements are inexplicably misaligned by one pixel, and the edges of some stuff look kind of jaggy, but nobody's gonna frett about that. And yes, the WebGL stuff doesn't work at all, but thats not critical and it doesn't run on older machines anyway.

    Version 8? Its completely fucked.

    Could I fix it? Possibly. But why? Yes, IE6-8 still hang on to some market share. But it's little enough that it simply isn't worth my time when everything works fine, with no extra effort, in every single other browser.

     

    There is no excuse for stuff not lining up in IE8. I could forgive your with IE7 since it is still plagued by hasLayout property bollox (which is still easily fixed) but IE8 doesn't have these bugs. I have absolutely no idea why you would have problems. The only thing I can imagine is that you are writing invalid markup or not specifying a doctype.

    When things are "inexplicably misaligned by one pixel" you have fucked up not the browser. Here is a clue, every single other browser lets you get away with sloppy CSS and Markup; put your stuff through a validator and fix the problems I am pretty sure everything will render correctly.

    As for the placeholder stuff, took me one very quick google to solve that problem http://davidwalsh.name/html5-placeholder.

     



  • @lucas said:

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

    Hey, you guys invented the Mexican wave!

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @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.

    The W3C needs to just give up, throw their hands into the air, and 301 their entire site to here.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @MiffTheFox said:

    The W3C needs to just give up, throw their hands into the air, and 301 their entire site to here.
     

    Why would the W3C copy Mozilla's roadmap for Firefox?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @MiffTheFox said:

    The W3C needs to just give up, throw their hands into the air, and 301 their entire site to here.
     

    Why would the W3C copy Mozilla's roadmap for Firefox?


    The firefox roadmap has more pointless rebranding than that.



  • @Ben L. said:

    The firefox roadmap has more pointless rebranding than that.

    Not pointless. More like "We don't want to get sued because, despite being FOSS engineers, not a single fucking one of us had heard of the Firebird database before we named our fucking browser the same thing. Not a single fucking one of us."



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    The firefox roadmap has more pointless rebranding than that.

    Not pointless. More like "We don't want to get sued because, despite being FOSS engineers, not a single fucking one of us had heard of the Firebird database before we named our fucking browser the same thing. Not a single fucking one of us."

    Wait, you mean there's never been anything named Chrome before Google's browser?

    Or that nothing has ever been named Explorer except for IE?



  • @Ben L. said:

    Wait, you mean there's never been anything named Chrome before Google's browser?

    Or that nothing has ever been named Explorer except for IE?

    Are these.. serious questions? You do realize that Firefox was first named Phoenix, which they had to change due to conflicts with other software; and then Firebird, which they then had to change because it was the name of a FOSS database server?


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Are these.. serious questions? You do realize that Firefox was first named Phoenix, which they had to change due to conflicts with other software; and then Firebird, which they then had to change because it was the name of a FOSS database server?
     

    It's not their fault. There wasn't a FOSS search engine they could plug these names into. Google may be free, but it isn't open source. 

    Naming things is tough. But hey, at least they never had a naming conflict amongst their own products. I mean it's be completely retarded if they were to accidentally name two completely seperate features the same thing like, just as a random example, "Persona".That'd be dumb, wouldn't it?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    I mean it's be completely retarded if they were to accidentally name two completely seperate features the same thing like, just as a random example, "Persona".That'd be dumb, wouldn't it?
     

    That was a good one
    \


Log in to reply