@ AC - "Yawn"
Show you a fully compliant browser? OK:
Firefox, Seamonkey, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, Epiphany, Camino... I could go on. All of these are W3C compliant. Yes, some have a few minor quirks and some support newer versions of the W3C and CSS standards than others, but ALL, and I mean ALL of them will display a web page constructed using <div> and CSS 2.0 tags correctly, without any modifications to the HTML. Internet Explorer does not.
Because of Internet Explorer, we have to *still* use tables (and sometimes frames) to design our web pages, because if we use the much more dynamic and flexible <div>+CSS approach recommended by the W3C, the page breaks in IE. So we are forced to use slow-loading, outdated HTML simply because Microsoft think they own the Web.
If the client is willing to pay the extra development cost (we quote it as "support for non-compliant user agents") we can design a site that uses <div>+CSS 2.0 while sending old-style table-based HTML to IE. The upshot of this is a website that provides a much faster and more functional user experience to all but IE users, who just get the "same-old" clunkiness, which is all their browser permits. Surprisingly, after being shown what's possible for non-IE users, quite a few clients pony up the extra dollars for the better website!
I would have no problems with people using IE if only it was standards compliant. As a web developer, I don't give a toss what browser people use, as long as it's compliant. The only reason I push Firefox is because it's popular AND compliant. I'm just as happy to push Opera or Safari as viable alternatives, although I do like Firefox's add-on system and configurability. But IE is NOT compliant, and catering to it practically doubles our development costs and time.
So yes, Microsoft should be put against the wall on this. Just as an electrical-goods manufacturer would be if they sold appliances with non-standards compliant power plugs. Standards exist for a reason.