Well sure, your dodgy code probably wouldn't work in my Firefox either.

If I had written it, it would've taken 3 minutes, worked with every browser, and smelt like a summer day in Tuscany.

Ah but it did work in Firefox (which incidentally the web developer plugin gave my script a clean bill of health), and in Chrome, and in Safari.

Repeat after me: it.did.not.work.in.IE.and.it.only.did.not.work.in.IE.

See? That wasn't so hard!

If you were genuinely only doing that, and IE stopped responding to clicks, then sure IE is broken.

But I suspect you have other (broken) JavaScript on the page (console is your friend), or maybe have managed to position a transparent element over the click target (element selector is your friend) which is stopping the target element from receiving the click events.

The whole point of jQuery is that it makes things like this behave the same across all browsers, including IE.

http://www.tehforum.co.uk/forum/index.php?webtag=DEFAULT&msg=40661.11

The point is, it's more likely the broken code you're using/writing being the issue, than it is jQuery's compatibility with IE10 being the issue.

Yes, old IEs can be a pain to work with, but the problem here could be several things specific to IE10, possibly it being more strict about certain things than Firefox or Chrome, or like Matt said, transparent elements over the target, or some slight difference in how IE interprets some CSS.

The point is you don't know, which is why everyone is telling you to open IE's console/dev tools and find out what the actual cause of the problem is, and fix that, rather than resorting to horrible inline-JS hackery.

And if you have found an issue with jQuery and its different handling of browser features, you should let the jQuery devs know about it.

Here's a minimal test case:
http://caer.me/clickhandler.html

I suspect an IE-specific conflict between the ca. 2008 css list js and jquery that I injected my little submenu into.

I got it working. Am I going to now obsessive-compulsively troubleshoot an issue between a really old (and rather complex) javascript, jquery and IE10?

In a word, no.

Well sure, if it's an isolated case then no point losing sleep over it. Like you said earlier, the user isn't going to be looking at the source anyway, so if it works, no big deal.

You are not PB.

It's quite simple:

    •  If all you want to do is whine about how useless you are at debugging trivial JS issues, use Ranter's Corner.

    •  If you want to receive advice on how you can stop being useless, post in Coding. It's not like these folder things are new technology or anything...

 (heart)

Um, and?

It's a blessing.

No doubt, but why bring it to my attention?

Peter could never bring himself to post what you said, unless he dropped acid a thousand times.

I don't expect he will, though.

Except I have at no point told you to lose sleep, and specifically identified it as a trivial issue.

Whether or not a random person decides to view source is irrelevant. More relevant, however, is whether a developer will come along in six months to make a change and wonder who did the ugly hack and why - they will of course be able to check the source control commit history for that line and see the explanation for making that particular change, right?

The web site is a whole ugly dog's breakfast. I chose the least intrusive route. Which paid off when I discovered my additions are compatible with ie7+ with a couple of minor CSS hacks (apologies; I know how repugnant you find this, you loon). The website is overripe for a complete rebuild, but ... not my call (or yours).

"the source control commit history"

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking.

Seriously? The web site is a whole ugly dog's breakfast, so you're modifying it without using source control, because that makes so much sense.

Jeepers! Next you'll be saying you were working directly on the live server for those three hours.

The live site hasn't been touched.

For you, I recommend the acid therapy. Begin today.