Thats just stupid!
Surely the browser should work for the Code.
Yes, or at least it certainly seems that way when you are programming for it.
However, it is not a unique or even uncommon problem in computer programming generally. "Standards" are things that are usually set by a third party, eg. the ISO, or in this case the W3C. That 3rd party may or (in this case) may not maintain a "reference implementation", which would amount to a browser which demonstrates standards compliance.
Of course, other groups in the same industry (people who make web browsers) will be involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in cooperating with creating and maintaining the standard. Eg, there is a binding review board with representatives from a number of different and competing companies. This way, it is more likely to be accepted and properly implemented by all concerned, so in theory, everyone wins.
Or, as Microsoft often does, they may choose to not be involved, and attempt to leverage their market share to discredit the standard. This could win them more market share: if most people use an MS product, and MS does not cooperate wrt to industry standards, whatever MS does will become the defacto norm, and most programmers will end up trying to satisfy the "defiant bully" rather than the rest of the gang. This strategy obviously can backfire to a certain extent; IE 6 and 7 caused lost market share from IE 5, I believe.
So, IE 7 and 8 are better, but there is still a rift there. Perhaps this is inevitable in a situation where two groups of people will want to try and do things two different ways. From an evolutionary perspective, that's good, there needs to be divergence. But it also leads to some severe inefficiencies, as evolution does.
Here's my preferred method for dealing with IE6:
http://206.251.36.107/IE6.htmThis is not very good tho, since some very large institutions such as schools and public library systems may still be using browsers from 5 or 6 years ago. On the other hand, sometimes it is just regular people unaware of the issue -- more than once I've had someone
thank me for that message.