A better Mail and Newsgroupmodul for OPERA !!!
HiddenGhost
I'm sure ,Opera is one of the best browser on earth,but it hasn't yet a mailclient ,which is compareble with the performance as a browser. Neither I can format the text ,nor mails with italic or bold letters are shown correct in
Opera. This fact really bugs me. I cant understand why the programmers (i gave a comment in the beta group and became a quite rude comment !) think a mail as pure unformated text is enough for daily working with
opera.
If I write mails I usually try to mark some sentences as italic, important parts as bold or so on.
If Opera would nearly reach the quality of mozilla's mailclient or it's mainparts opera would IMO the best,the only real browser on earth ;-) !!!
mfg Patrick K., Germany !
Pa
news:1103_10...@news.opera.no:
> If Opera would nearly reach the quality of mozilla's
> mailclient or it's mainparts opera would IMO the best,the
> only real browser on earth
The moment the weight of the in house mail client is felt, I am
going to use the Bat or Pegasus.
Only thing it needs is online spellchecker (circa validate, only
with spellcheck.net or others for additional languages). There
are tons of stuff that could be added. But when is the stopping
point? It has filters; I have spellchecker. Things can save,
you can search. It read html. Auth is a little annoying. But
on whole, it is usable. You can always attach hmtl files to an
email. Use another composer.
If they can do a miracle and add the most needed features,
without adding any weight or bugs, then fine. But add an ounce
to it, and I am ditching it.
HiddenGhost
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:57:01 GMT, HiddenGhost <pcge...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Neither I can format the text ,nor mails with italic or bold letters are shown correct in
> > Opera. This fact really bugs me. I cant understand why the programmers (i gave a
> > comment in the beta group and became a quite rude comment !) think a mail as
> > pure unformated text is enough for daily working with opera.
>
Why ? Could you explain this ,please ?
Phil Burns
Try reading some recent discussions in this group on the subject.
--
Phil
Jernej Simončič
> Why ? Could you explain this ,please ?
Ok. Here we go again (xfut opera.off-topic):
- Size: HTML e-mails are (in the best case) 5-10% larger than plaintext,
but usually they are more than twice the size (both plaintext and HTML
versions are sent, and HTML is always larger than plaintext - so more
than 2x size; most programs produce such e-mails)
- security: noone has ever got a virus through plain-text mail. Also, if
javascript is enabled, you could crash the mailer
- compatibility: all e-mail clients can show plain text. a lot can't
display HTML (some can strip the tags, but not all)
- lost of control: I like to view my mail and newsgroups in Lucida
Console, 10 points. HTML messages take this away from me (and no, I
don't use Opera for e-mail, so I can't use custom stylesheet)
- privacy: if you embed a image (which resides on remote server) in the
HTML message, you can track the e-mail (a lot of mailclients nowadays
can luckily disable display of images not included in the message)
A lot of users delete HTML messages immediately. I also heard of
mailservers, which reject HTML messages. If you send a HTML to me, don't
expect answer too soon (all HTML mail not belonging to mailing lists
goes to SPAM folder, which I check once in a while, and maybe even
answer some non-spam messages - that is, if I spot them)
--
Jernej Simoncic, jernej....@guest.arnes.si
http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/
ICQ: 26266467
Jon Carlson
bogus arguments come up when denying Opera users SEND PAGE BY EMAIL. Oh, sure, you can send a link or an
attachment BUT IT AIN'T AS MUCH FUN! Like giving a gift with just a note inside. This is the 21th Century.
Opera want more customers; then satisfy the customer not the programmers. Jon Carlson Oak Park, IL
Matthew Winn
> Same
> bogus arguments come up when denying Opera users SEND PAGE BY EMAIL. Oh, sure, you can send a link or an
> attachment BUT IT AIN'T AS MUCH FUN! Like giving a gift with just a note inside.
Don't call the arguments bogus just because you don't understand them.
There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
by email, and as yet nobody has come up with a reason why pages should
be sent by email apart from "IE does it and I wanna do it too".
No application can please everyone and there's no reason to try to do
so. Opera appeals to those who understand the internet, who care about
being polite to other users and not hogging bandwidth, and who know that
there is a wide variety of systems out there and communication between
them needs to take that variety into account: people who understand that
"the web" and "the internet" are not one and the same, and that getting
the best out of the electronic world requires knowledge and intelligence.
There's already quite enough software available for those who think the
entire world uses exactly the same software as they do and who don't
give a damn about anyone else so long as they can do what they want.
Why should Opera try and break into a market which is already sewn up by
Microsoft, when there are so many people out there who _aren't_ idiots?
> This is the 21th Century.
Yes, I think it probably is.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Jarek Piórkowski
>> Oh, sure, you can send a link or an attachment BUT IT AIN'T AS
>> MUCH FUN!
>
> If you want fun put on a red nose and a pink wig and run naked
> around the block.
I have to agree with this one. ROTFL^5
--
:: Greetings,
:: Jarek Piórkowski
:: [decode email address with ROT-13 or jarek_piorkowski on yahoo.com]
Kenneth Porter
news:Xns91F2C3A...@127.0.0.1:
> Pewnego pięknego dnia, batboy wyklawiaturzył:
>
>>> Oh, sure, you can send a link or an attachment BUT IT AIN'T AS
>>> MUCH FUN!
>>
>> If you want fun put on a red nose and a pink wig and run naked
>> around the block.
>
> I have to agree with this one. ROTFL^5
OMG, we're ALL in agreement?! ;-)
One good thing about HTML mail: It's a sure sign it's spam, so it makes it
easy to set up a spam filter. Just delete anything that has HTML in it.
--
Kenneth Porter
http://www.sewingwitch.com/ken/
Jarek Piórkowski
> One good thing about HTML mail: It's a sure sign it's spam, so it
> makes it easy to set up a spam filter. Just delete anything that
> has HTML in it.
Recently I got some non-HTML spams. But these are easy to filter out
with subjects like "make money fast"...
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:57:01 GMT, HiddenGhost <pcge...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Opera. This fact really bugs me. I cant understand why the programmers (i gave a
> > comment in the beta group and became a quite rude comment !) think a mail as
> > pure unformated text is enough for daily working with opera.
>
Not true: just in some cases, particularly when you are mailing to a large list of unknown people.
In case you like to send HTML email to a friend that is using a HTML mail reader, you should also
be able to write the way you like it.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
This is a good point - the HTML mail is rejected ONLY in newsgrops and never even discussed, just
simply 90 accepted (and liked) by anyone on a non-IT mailing list.
It's all about standard features, not about teaching someone how to write to a newsgroup/mailing
list.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:20:17 GMT, Jon Carlson <carls...@att.net> wrote:
> > Same
> > bogus arguments come up when denying Opera users SEND PAGE BY EMAIL. Oh, sure, you can send a
link or an
> > attachment BUT IT AIN'T AS MUCH FUN! Like giving a gift with just a note inside.
>
> Don't call the arguments bogus just because you don't understand them.
> There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
Noone on this newsgroup has explained those.
I know my mailing list, I know my friends, and I just would like to choose how to handle both of
them (differently).
> by email, and as yet nobody has come up with a reason why pages should
> be sent by email apart from "IE does it and I wanna do it too".
It's not because IE does it. It's because this a nice feature.
>
> No application can please everyone and there's no reason to try to do
> so. Opera appeals to those who understand the internet, who care about
> being polite to other users and not hogging bandwidth, and who know that
> there is a wide variety of systems out there and communication between
> them needs to take that variety into account: people who understand that
> "the web" and "the internet" are not one and the same, and that getting
> the best out of the electronic world requires knowledge and intelligence.
>
As well as writting proper html does.
Remember - it's just a feature request, some people do like html email, some do not.
It there is a reason that is not linked to the idea of teaching the user NOT to write html emails
- just name it.
> There's already quite enough software available for those who think the
> entire world uses exactly the same software as they do and who don't
> give a damn about anyone else so long as they can do what they want.
> Why should Opera try and break into a market which is already sewn up by
> Microsoft, when there are so many people out there who _aren't_ idiots?
>
Opera DID already break into the market sewn up by M$.
And I would not call _idiots_ anyone capable of writting and understanding html.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> > > This has been explained a million times. Mail should be plain text.
> >
> > Not true: just in some cases, particularly when you are mailing to a large list of unknown
people.
> > In case you like to send HTML email to a friend that is using a HTML mail reader, you should
also
> > be able to write the way you like it.
>
> them. If a mailer sends HTML by default they always send with HTML.
> And vice versa.
>
This is a good reason to put the plain text formatting as a default option, but not to completely
eliminate the choice of composing html email.
Once again: the choice of a newbie to write html email would not be changed by removing the
feature from an email composer. If one likes the feature, one switches to utilities that support
it, so why not having newbies use the Opera mail composer, without tempting them into putting html
in every message?
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:12:05 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg>
> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Apr 2002 09:30:56 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:20:17 GMT, Jon Carlson <carls...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > Same
> > > > bogus arguments come up when denying Opera users SEND PAGE BY EMAIL. Oh, sure, you can
send a
> > link or an
> > > > attachment BUT IT AIN'T AS MUCH FUN! Like giving a gift with just a note inside.
> > >
> > > Don't call the arguments bogus just because you don't understand them.
> > > There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
> >
> > Noone on this newsgroup has explained those.
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lobnaukqd344h45o2pbanmilue1l1gg2vr%404ax.com
>
> That's how much thought you've put into this, eh?
>
Ok, I've missed this posting, still it does not point out no technical, nor legal reason why pages
should not be sent. It still deals with the argument about how appropriate an html email message
is.
Implementing new features is giving the user the right to choose.
> > > No application can please everyone and there's no reason to try to do
> > > so. Opera appeals to those who understand the internet, who care about
> > > being polite to other users and not hogging bandwidth, and who know that
> > > there is a wide variety of systems out there and communication between
> > > them needs to take that variety into account: people who understand that
> > > "the web" and "the internet" are not one and the same, and that getting
> > > the best out of the electronic world requires knowledge and intelligence.
> > >
> >
> > As well as writting proper html does.
> > Remember - it's just a feature request, some people do like html email, some do not.
> > It there is a reason that is not linked to the idea of teaching the user NOT to write html
emails
> > - just name it.
>
> What?
>
Why not have the choice of writting styled email in an email composer?
Except for the argument that this would be *unprofessional* (is Opera targeting only professionals
?)
>
> > And I would not call _idiots_ anyone capable of writting and understanding html.
>
> You don't have to know HTML to write email.
The let the composer write the HTML instead of me, to keep it that way.
I do write HTML emails using Opera mail composer and EditPlus and a couple of tricks.
But why should this feature be left out of the reach of a newbie, who won't be capable of doing
all the stuff by himself?
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Wojciech E.
<2p1ecucgt9k99cke7...@4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:48:05 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:53:28 +0200, batboy <_anomalius_@o_p_e_r_a_m_a_i_l.com> wrote:
>> > This has been explained a million times. Mail should be plain text.
>>
>> Not true: just in some cases, particularly when you are mailing to a large list of
unknown people.
>> In case you like to send HTML email to a friend that is using a HTML mail reader, you
should also
>> be able to write the way you like it.
>
>them. If a mailer sends HTML by default they always send with HTML.
>And vice versa.
>
I agree with Kalin batboy. You have no arguments for that.
If I want to write to my friend in HTML mail I *want* my email client to *enable it* to
me.
If I send to a large group of people, I will send email in plain text, to be sure everyone
can read it.
You may say HTML is proffesional or not, but if I want to chat with in HTML with my mate,
it's non of your or Opera ASA's business to forbid it to me. I vote to enable HTML mail in
Opera.
The default setting may be plain text, so that newbies send it in plaint text.
Easy? Yes is it!
Wojciech E.
---
Everything is under control
Fools are on the proccess of taming
/ME
Matthew Winn
> On 16 Apr 2002 09:30:56 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
> > There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
>
> Noone on this newsgroup has explained those.
They were explained a few weeks ago. Search if you want the details,
but briefly:
Technical: bandwidth. If anyone sent me a web page by email I would
hang up the connection as soon as I realised what was going on. Then
I would go round to his house and, after getting compensation for my
phone bill, insert his computer where only a surgeon would be able to
reach it.
Legal: copyright. No matter how much you like a site, and no matter how
much you think someone else might like it, you do NOT have the right to
take a copy of it. Point someone else to it by all means, but don't
think for one second you have the right to redistribute the information
on that site without the permission of the owner.
If you're so keen to send pages by email come up with some good reasons
why you should be able to do so. They should include justification for
violation of the author's copyright and possible denial of advertising
revenue, and an explanation of why you think it necessary to force the
recipient to download a page instead of leaving it up to him to decide
whether he wants to spend his time and bandwidth viewing the site.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Toby A Inkster
> You know as well as I do that newbies will send whatever is served to
> them. If a mailer sends HTML by default they always send with HTML. And
> vice versa
Which is why my suggestion is that:
* HTML mail should be an *option* switched *off* by default.
* The user should not have a WYSIWYG tool for writing the HTML -- they
should have to write it by hand. This will discourage people from
using it when they don't strictly need to, and it will encourage
better, easier to read (when viewing source) HTML. Also, it will not
add bloat to the program (although as I recall, batboy loves bloat!)
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de
In a Czechoslovakian tourist agency: Take one of our horse-driven city
tours -- we guarantee no miscarriages.
Toby A Inkster
> Ok, I've missed this posting, still it does not point out no technical,
> nor legal reason why pages should not be sent.
There is a legal reason: copyright. Opera could *theoretically* be
charged with contributary copyright infringment, like Napster was.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de
In a Belgrade hotel elevator: To move the cabin, push button for
wishing floor. If the cabin should enter more persons, each one
should press a number of wishing floor. Driving is then going
alphabetically by national order.
Jernej Simonèiè
> You may say HTML is proffesional or not, but if I want to chat with in HTML with my mate,
> it's non of your or Opera ASA's business to forbid it to me. I vote to enable HTML mail in
> Opera.
The issue isn't in Opera forbiding the HTML mail. The issue is
developing a HTML composer. Most of the resources in Opera are taken by
the development of the browser core - the display engine. Now imagine
the time it would take to create a working HTML composer...
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:12:05 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg> wrote:
> > On 16 Apr 2002 09:30:56 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
> > > There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
> >
> > Noone on this newsgroup has explained those.
>
> They were explained a few weeks ago. Search if you want the details,
> but briefly:
>
> Technical: bandwidth. If anyone sent me a web page by email I would
> hang up the connection as soon as I realised what was going on. Then
> I would go round to his house and, after getting compensation for my
> phone bill, insert his computer where only a surgeon would be able to
> reach it.
>
This has been answered many times now troughout this news group, but basicly:
this concerns the recipient, so the issue can easily be reduced again to the question how
approprite is it to send a html message to a particular recipent or to a group of unknown
recipients.
The answer to this question should be given by the one sending the message and not by the email
composing program. The responsibility should be held by the user. Let it default to text/plain and
make anyone, willing to send a whole page by email, happy.
> Legal: copyright. No matter how much you like a site, and no matter how
> much you think someone else might like it, you do NOT have the right to
> take a copy of it. Point someone else to it by all means, but don't
> think for one second you have the right to redistribute the information
> on that site without the permission of the owner.
The page is mine, I wrote it, it's not published, why shouldn't I be able to send it to someone I
know with email-only access, for example?
The responsibility should be held by the user, sending the page. He should deside. Maybe a warning
about this legal issue, upon sending a web page by email, would be a better solution? It's even
better, since I didn't know about such issue until I joined this discussion, so putting a warning
would let the user know about that, without stopping him from doing what he has chosen to do.
> If you're so keen to send pages by email come up with some good reasons
> why you should be able to do so. They should include justification for
> violation of the author's copyright and possible denial of advertising
> revenue, and an explanation of why you think it necessary to force the
> recipient to download a page instead of leaving it up to him to decide
> whether he wants to spend his time and bandwidth viewing the site.
1) The page is mine, I am the author, it's not on the web, and I want to send it to someone I
know, who is willing to spend his time and bandwidth - why not?
2) The page is of a friend of mine, he has authrized me to send it to anyone.
I believe these are just two examples of why the email composing program should not be concerned
of the legal side of the issue, nor of the recipients willingnes and ability to download and view
html email, these are decisions to be made by the user of the email composer, sending the web
page.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On 25. 04. 02 11:28:57, Wojciech E. wrote:
>
> > You may say HTML is proffesional or not, but if I want to chat with in HTML with my mate,
> > it's non of your or Opera ASA's business to forbid it to me. I vote to enable HTML mail in
> > Opera.
>
> The issue isn't in Opera forbiding the HTML mail. The issue is
> developing a HTML composer. Most of the resources in Opera are taken by
> the development of the browser core - the display engine. Now imagine
> the time it would take to create a working HTML composer...
>
Actually there is no need for a full HTML composer.
Imagine one, supporting just the most used in a text document formatting options (fonts, colors,
images).
These might be easily identified, once a basic HTML composer has been approved as a nice to have
feature in the email composer.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:38:07 +0100, Kalin Fetvadjiev wrote:
>
> > Ok, I've missed this posting, still it does not point out no technical,
> > nor legal reason why pages should not be sent.
>
> There is a legal reason: copyright. Opera could *theoretically* be
> charged with contributary copyright infringment, like Napster was.
>
I doubt this is a concern, since you already have the functionality of saving a whole web page
locally, which is as much illegal, as sending it over to someone else (since that is the only way
to do it any way - save and send.)
Besides - Napster was charged for sharing and downloading mp3's, I believe. A web page has already
been shared, so should all browser developers be charged, for downloading it? I could as well use
winzip and ftp, or winzip and email if you prefer, is this a concern for the email composing
program? I don't belive.
Anyway - this question might be answered better by someone with a legal eduacation. Still I don't
see the legal issue on the side of the browser and emailer.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Toby A Inkster
> Now imagine the time it would take to create a working HTML composer...
It would need roughly 50 lines of C code my way:
* insert an option into preferences: "Allow HTML Composition".
* when a new message composition window is displayed, if the option
has been enabled, display a little check-box (unchecked by default)
saying "This message is in HTML".
* when the message is sent, if the box is checked, change the MIME
type of the message from "text/plain" to "text/html".
* if you really wanted to go overboard, you could add a button to
validate the HTML mid-composition. Of course, you'd have to bring
up a dialog box explaining the privacy issues raised there.
It;s really a very small effort.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de
In an East African newspaper: A new swimming pool is rapidly taking
shape since the contractors have thrown in the bulk of their workers.
Rob Pitkin
>On 25 Apr 2002 12:46:18 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:12:05 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg> wrote:
>> > On 16 Apr 2002 09:30:56 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
>> > > There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
[...]
>
>1) The page is mine, I am the author, it's not on the web, and I want to send it to someone I
>know, who is willing to spend his time and bandwidth - why not?
>2) The page is of a friend of mine, he has authrized me to send it to anyone.
>
>I believe these are just two examples of why the email composing program should not be concerned
>of the legal side of the issue, nor of the recipients willingnes and ability to download and view
>html email, these are decisions to be made by the user of the email composer, sending the web
>page.
>
>Kalin Fetvadjiev
>
Looking at it from my limited legal knowledge;
What you propose could *possibly* leave Opera open to charge of contributary
negligence, in that they supplied the means of transmitting copywrite
material on a network, no matter whether they did it themselves or not.
I don't know if this has ever been tested, but I am glad it will be MS with
all Bill's money, and the other HTML capable e-mail apps.
fighting it and not Opera.
Just another angle, I am not convinced either way just yet.
CU Opera for free . . . .
-
Rob Pitkin
#
"Never argue with a fool.
He'll drag you down to his level,
and beat you with experience."
Mark Twain
Jarek Piórkowski
> Also, it will not add bloat to the program (although as I
> recall, batboy loves bloat!)
Yes, and he also likes to have several kitchen appliances built into
browser :)
P,NMSP :)
--
[ :: Greetings, Jarek Piórkowski :: ]
[ :: ROT-13 on e-mail address or jarek_piorkowski on yahoo.com :: ]
Peter Karlsson
> I doubt this is a concern, since you already have the functionality of saving a whole web page
> locally, which is as much illegal, as sending it over to someone else (since that is the only way
> to do it any way - save and send.)
No, it's not, at least not over here. Downloading for private use is not
illegal (otherwise caching documents would be illegal), but spreading them
is. (At least for documents, and at least according to what I understand of
Swedish laws, although I think Norwegian laws are the same; computer
programs fall under different laws).
--
\\//
peter, developer / utvecklare / utvikler / Entwickler, Opera Software
The opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer.
Please reply only by follow-ups in the newsgroup.
Matthew Winn
> On 25 Apr 2002 12:46:18 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
> > Legal: copyright. No matter how much you like a site, and no matter how
> > much you think someone else might like it, you do NOT have the right to
> > take a copy of it. Point someone else to it by all means, but don't
> > think for one second you have the right to redistribute the information
> > on that site without the permission of the owner.
>
> The page is mine, I wrote it, it's not published, why shouldn't I be able to send it to someone I
> know with email-only access, for example?
As far as I can remember you are the only person who has suggested using
"send page by email" for sending your own pages. Everyone else has come
up with copyright-ignoring arguments like "What if I discover a page I
really like and want to tell a friend?" or "What if I don't want the
author to change the page before my friend has seen it?". YOU may want
to send your own data, but most people just want a simple way to rip off
someone else's property.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Toby A Inkster
> The sender has no right to choose how I view my email.
I'll have to remember to send all mail to you in application/postscript
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de
In the lobby of a Moscow hotel across from a Russian Orthodox
monastary: You are welcome to visit the cemetery where famous Russian
and Soviet composers, artists, and writers are buried daily except
Thursday.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:28:57 +0200, "Wojciech E."
> <voy...@NOSPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
>
> > >HTML in mail is unprofessional.
> >
> > I agree with Kalin batboy. You have no arguments for that.
>
> know what they are doing. Send HTML email to professional IT companies
> and they will laugh at you.
>
You can't assume that for the whole wide world.
Here is a small set of examples of professional IT companies I have been receiving HTML emails
from troughout the years:
- PiResearch (UK based company making the hardware and software for Jaguar/Ford WRC and F1 cars;
owned by them).
- Danzas Group (the one that owns DHL).
- Nortel Networks.
that should be professional enough for everyone.
> > You may say HTML is proffesional or not, but if I want to chat with in HTML with my mate,
> > it's non of your or Opera ASA's business to forbid it to me. I vote to enable HTML mail in
> > Opera.
>
> Then use a different email client. Simple.
It's just a reasonable wish for the next version, from the users of Opera, not from the users of
some other email client.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:27:32 +0100, batboy wrote:
>
> > You know as well as I do that newbies will send whatever is served to
> > them. If a mailer sends HTML by default they always send with HTML. And
> > vice versa
>
> Which is why my suggestion is that:
>
> * HTML mail should be an *option* switched *off* by default.
>
> * The user should not have a WYSIWYG tool for writing the HTML -- they
> should have to write it by hand. This will discourage people from
> using it when they don't strictly need to, and it will encourage
> better, easier to read (when viewing source) HTML. Also, it will not
> add bloat to the program (although as I recall, batboy loves bloat!)
This would do fine for me it would be great having it that way for me.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Toby A Inkster
> Then use a different email client. Simple.
I do. I doubt I'll ever use Opera for mail. And not because of this issue
-- I have little use for HTML mail sending capabilities. I just prefer
seperate tools for seperate jobs.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de
In an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist: Teeth extrcted by the
latest Methodists.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Actually there is no need for a full HTML composer. Imagine one,
> supporting just the most used in a text document formatting options
> (fonts, colors, images).
AAARGHHH! RAHSGU! Those are the exact items I would LEAST like to see
in a hypothetical HTML mail. HTML is a structural markup language. I
should be used to convey structure, like "this is a header", "this is an
unordered list", or maybe even "this should be emphasized", and NOT
"This should be flashing being on brown in the font Unreadable".
I cannot say what is most used in text document formatting, but even in
Word^H^H^H^HStar Office, I go for structural formatting first, and
visual formatting only as finishing touches.
Fonts will *not* work anyway, since they depend on the fonts of the
receivers machine. Not all people have even the standard Windows fonts
installed, or even truetype suppport.
Colors are.... pretty much uninformative, but can be used effectively
if one is very carefull, for representing some specific structured data.
Images, again, are usefull only if your message depends on them, and
could just as easily be put on the web and a reference mailed instead.
Not all mail-spools are happy about large binary mails.
In general, you seem to be advocating using HTML to convey visual aspects,
not structural ones. I suggest using something else for that, it's like
using a fork to eat soup... great tool, just not for that job.
I can see a use for HTML in mails, but only for structure, NOT for
colors/fonts/other-visual-gadgets. If you want to know how your mail
will look to the recipient, send a .pdf-file. That is pretty much the
only format that guarantees that it looks identical on the receiving
machine and is available on most.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - l...@hotpop.com
'Faith without judgment merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> You can't assume that for the whole wide world. Here is a small set
> of examples of professional IT companies I have been receiving HTML
> emails from troughout the years:
...
>
> that should be professional enough for everyone.
The question here is: Did you get the mail from their marketing
department or from their tech department? :)
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> Kalin Fetvadjiev:
>
> > I doubt this is a concern, since you already have the functionality of saving a whole web page
> > locally, which is as much illegal, as sending it over to someone else (since that is the only
way
> > to do it any way - save and send.)
>
> No, it's not, at least not over here. Downloading for private use is not
> illegal (otherwise caching documents would be illegal), but spreading them
> is. (At least for documents, and at least according to what I understand of
> Swedish laws, although I think Norwegian laws are the same; computer
> programs fall under different laws).
>
The question is : does this apply to documents, being shared already?
Having in mind that we're talking about the software, that let's you spread a document, of course,
and not the person who did it.
Actually, are all the web servers illegal? Or Google, for providing the means to find a link to
illegaly shared documents? Google is even caching them, and lets you view the cached document's
contents _after_ it has been taken off the web.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:12:05 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg> wrote:
> > On 16 Apr 2002 09:30:56 GMT, mat...@sheridan.co.uk (Matthew Winn) wrote:
> > > There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
> >
> > Noone on this newsgroup has explained those.
>
> They were explained a few weeks ago. Search if you want the details,
> but briefly:
>
> Technical: bandwidth. If anyone sent me a web page by email I would
> hang up the connection as soon as I realised what was going on. Then
> I would go round to his house and, after getting compensation for my
> phone bill, insert his computer where only a surgeon would be able to
> reach it.
>
> Legal: copyright. No matter how much you like a site, and no matter how
> much you think someone else might like it, you do NOT have the right to
> take a copy of it. Point someone else to it by all means, but don't
> think for one second you have the right to redistribute the information
> on that site without the permission of the owner.
>
>
> If you're so keen to send pages by email come up with some good reasons
> why you should be able to do so.
Enter Advocato Diabloi:
To send internal pages (not on a public server) being constructed to
other members of the web-desig group placed in different locations.
> They should include justification for
> violation of the author's copyright and possible denial of advertising
> revenue,
It is MY page, I have the right to send it to anyone I bloody well
want to. You don't know that I don't have the right, and I resent
being considered a copyright violator just for wanting to send a page.
(In short: Whether it is illegal or not is not clear cut, and the only
one who can decide that is the user, NOT the programmer. This should
constitute "sufficient non-infringing use".)
> and an explanation of why you think it necessary to force the
> recipient to download a page instead of leaving it up to him to decide
> whether he wants to spend his time and bandwidth viewing the site.
He asked for it already!
So, it is fairly easy to come up with a situation where someone needs
and has the right to send a page.
Now, for the more realistic look on it: This was a constructed scenario,
and in *normal* use there are very few cases where all of the arguments
hold, particularly the need one, as sending a URL is much more efficient
for the reasons you pointed out yourself. Thus, there isn't really any
reason to build the feature into the browser. Our hero from above should
just go get himself a simple tool that can do the job for him instead
(like five lines of perl using wget and zip).
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Opera have stated where they stand. Accept it
> and move on.
Oh, and I don't mind for a second. I have no use for coposing html in
my email reader either. And I wouldn't use Operas email client anyway,
I want a standalone, specialized program for something as important
as email.
> No. The sender has no right to choose how I view my email.
Ofcourse not. You are completely free to view whatever he sent you in
any way you want... Are you telling me he has no right to decide the
content of his message?
I might agree with your conclusion, but this "argument" isn't.
Ofcourse, you have the right to decide *not* to read it at all, which
is why he should pick a format that you will read... for his sake, if
not for yours.
Personally, I just hope they spend more time on the browser and less
on everything else, as I won't be using it anyway :)
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg> writes:
>
> > You can't assume that for the whole wide world. Here is a small set
> > of examples of professional IT companies I have been receiving HTML
> > emails from troughout the years:
> >
> > that should be professional enough for everyone.
>
> The question here is: Did you get the mail from their marketing
> department or from their tech department? :)
>
Mostly software developers.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Toby A Inkster
> Actually, are all the web servers illegal? Or Google, for providing the
> means to find a link to illegaly shared documents? Google is even
> caching them
By uploading a page, you implicitly give permission for the page to be
distributed as is usual on the web -- in browser caches, in Squid
servers and so on.
Google does cache web documents, but only when:
* the webserver doesn't send a "no-cache" header;
* the web page doesn't contain a "no-cache" meta tag; AND
* there is no robots.txt file forbidding it.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de
In a Swiss mountain inn: Special today -- no ice cream.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:02:57 +0100, Kalin Fetvadjiev wrote:
>
> > Actually, are all the web servers illegal? Or Google, for providing the
> > means to find a link to illegaly shared documents? Google is even
> > caching them
>
> By uploading a page, you implicitly give permission for the page to be
> distributed as is usual on the web -- in browser caches, in Squid
> servers and so on.
>
> Google does cache web documents, but only when:
>
> * the webserver doesn't send a "no-cache" header;
> * the web page doesn't contain a "no-cache" meta tag; AND
> * there is no robots.txt file forbidding it.
>
This is something new to me. Still it sounds like a good and easy to implement criteria, when to
allow sending a whole page by email.
I personally wouldn't mind if Opera denies me this functionality, by saying "you are trying to
perform an illegal operation on this document bacuase this, and this or this."
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Manni Heumann
> Here is a small set of examples of professional IT companies I
> have been receiving HTML emails from troughout the years:
[snipped]
> that should be professional enough for everyone.
I don't get it. So there are a couple of it companies that will send
you html mails. Does that make it advisable to send html mails? There
are a couple of it companies that went broke, does that mean I should
do that too? There are lots and lots of IT companies delivering buggy
software, does that mean bug-free software is unprofessional? Come
on!
Manni
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Yes, you really didn't get it at all! It might be my poor english, or something, for which I am
asking to be excused, it?s not my native language, as you probably noticed, but anyway:
here is what we're discussing: is HTML email unprofessional?
The answer is NO because of the above.
I was trying to say, that using, or not using HTML email does not relate at all with being
professional or unprofessional.
To prove that, I answered the question: are there companies, who?s proffesional IT employees use
HTML email? The answer is ?Yes?, so using HTML email is NOT unprofessional at all.
Hope this makes thing a little bit more clear.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
PS. It?s not ?a couple? of IT companies, there are thousands of them out there, I have just given
an example with some of the most easily recognizable as proffesionals, which I have encountered
personally.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:38:07 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg>
> wrote:
>
> > > > > Don't call the arguments bogus just because you don't understand them.
> > > > > There are both technical and legal reasons why pages should not be sent
> > > >
> > > > Noone on this newsgroup has explained those.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lobnaukqd344h45o2pbanmilue1l1gg2vr%404ax.com
> > >
> > > That's how much thought you've put into this, eh?
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I've missed this posting, still it does not point out no technical, nor legal reason why
pages
> > should not be sent. It still deals with the argument about how appropriate an html email
message
> > is.
> >
> > Implementing new features is giving the user the right to choose.
>
> Are you even reading this? The URL above explains HTML EMAIL not
> sending pages.
>
This is the ?Add SEND PAGE BY EMAIL? thread.
> > > > And I would not call _idiots_ anyone capable of writting and understanding html.
> > >
> > > You don't have to know HTML to write email.
> >
> > The let the composer write the HTML instead of me, to keep it that way.
>
> Sounds like begging for trouble.
>
I am not the one to tell how to do it, and if such a feature brings enough benefits to the user,
to make it profitable etc, etc, this was just a suggestion.
Opera doesn even have to include the ?writting HTML? feature to be able to send a HTML page at
all.
Lets keep the main subject of the thread.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Some people call me... Tim
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:18:20 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg>
wrote:
[...]
>I was trying to say, that using, or not using HTML email does not relate at all with being
>professional or unprofessional.
>
>To prove that, I answered the question: are there companies, who?s proffesional IT employees use
>HTML email? The answer is ?Yes?, so using HTML email is NOT unprofessional at all.
Just because there are companies that use HTML e-mail doesn't
mean that using HTML e-mail is professional. Just because everyone
exceeds the speed limit doesn't make it legal.
As I stated in a previous post in an HTML e-mail thread, I'm
taking a technical writing course write now at school. We were told
both by our professor and by the Career Development Center for our
school that sending formatted resumes in the body of an e-mail is a
sure way to not get the job. I can hardly think of a professional
communication taken more seriously than a resume. Therefore, my
conclusion is that HTML e-mail is highly unprofessional.
I cannot recall one single HTML e-mail that I've received that
made the e-mail more readable and useful. If anything, they made the
e-mails more difficult to read. Professionals rarely want to make
each other's jobs harder.
--
Tim Altman
roy...@myrealSP-AMbox.com
No SP-AM is good spam.
Some people call me... Tim
<l...@infimum.dk> wrote:
[...]
>> If you're so keen to send pages by email come up with some good reasons
>> why you should be able to do so.
>
>Enter Advocato Diabloi:
>
>To send internal pages (not on a public server) being constructed to
>other members of the web-desig group placed in different locations.
There's a perfectly acceptable means of doing that already: zip
the web page and send it as an attachment.
Jernej Simončič
> As far as I can tell, it's no different from recording a TV show off the
> air using a VCR and then giving the tape to a friend. Actually I don't
> know if that would be legal or not, but it should be as it clearly doesn't
> harm anyone.
If it were the way MPAA want's it, you shouldn't be even allowed to
record the show off TV, much less lend it to someone (just search for
SSSCA or CDBTPA on google). Actually, if you look at CDs, it says that
even lending is illegal...
--
Jernej Simoncic, jernej....@guest.arnes.si
http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/
ICQ: 26266467
xpost & fup2 opera.off-topic
Wojciech E.
>
> * The user should not have a WYSIWYG tool for writing the HTML -- they
> should have to write it by hand. This will discourage people from
> using it when they don't strictly need to, and it will encourage
> better, easier to read (when viewing source) HTML. Also, it will not
> add bloat to the program (although as I recall, batboy loves bloat!)
Well, I personally agree. I can handle it. This w/o WYSIWYG mode is perfect if someone
really wants to make a large HTML email and code it in the most efficient way.
But if I write to my friend a simple email, and the only thing I want to do is emphasize
some phrazes by Bolding/Underlining/Colouring (I know some of you plain-text fanatics hate
it, but this is the most common usage of HTML in emails) it's really not too handy, not so
comfortable to put <b></b> on every phraze I want to bold and so on. If WYSIWYG is not
gonna come through, I would opt for about 5 buttons that would add this tags. And the end
of line could possibly be automaticaly converted to <br>. I realize it's a beggining of a
HTML editor, but this is only my proposal to add these few buttons, as these are most
common 5 functions (bold, italianize, underline, set specified colour, and maybe embed
picture) used in simple use of HTML in mail. Any other, more advanced fuctions users will
create in external editors or by hand if (s)he wish to.
Another thing is that if I code a HTML mail in non WYSIWYG mode, I would like to see
effects of what I have done. Therefore if an idea of non-WYSIWYG mode would pass, I would
vote for adding a Preview option, to look what I've coded so far. I guess it wouldn't be
too problematic, as an engine for reading HTML e-mails may be used, so no any serious
programming effort is required here.
Regards
Wojciech E.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Voytec - the fighter against powers of darkness
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Ad
"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Rob Pitkin
Thank you Peter, and in most Western countries, including Australia,
which is the same as Sweden, you are allowed, like software,
to record for yourself and keep a limited amount of copywrite material
for your own business and family use.
The difference arises when you attempt or in fact do transmit any copywrite
material on a network of any kind. Then you are comitting an offence and in
most Western countries their are proscribed penalties for breaching these
long gazetted copywrite laws.
My feeling is, that by providing the means to transmit that copywrite material
over a network, Opera may in fact, be contributing to the illegal
transmisssion and distribution of said copywrite material.
As a former semi-pro musician, I feel particularly strongly about copywrite.
I have retired from the pubs now, and therefore do not earn a large income
from what I spent half a life-time, practising; admittedly because I loved it,
but I still feel that any small income ( and believe me, it is very small! ),
I can receive from the legal transmission and distribution of my work,
is well earned for those years of practise!
As much as I can see why it is desirable for a lot of people, nevertheless,
I can not trust the whole population of the planet to do the right thing and
pay a small amount for the pleasure my music, text or art may provide.
So until, there is some way to ensure my copywrite protection,
I am sorry, but I am not in favour of a HTML write capable e-mail client,
in Opera. . . . . . Please try and 'see' it from the artist's side. thanx.
HTH TIA CU Opera for mindin' the kids free . . . . 8-)
-
Rob Pitkin
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On 26 Apr 2002 13:57:03 +0200, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> <l...@infimum.dk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> If you're so keen to send pages by email come up with some good reasons
> >> why you should be able to do so.
> >
> >Enter Advocato Diabloi:
> >
> >To send internal pages (not on a public server) being constructed to
> >other members of the web-desig group placed in different locations.
>
> There's a perfectly acceptable means of doing that already: zip
> the web page and send it as an attachment.
>
It?s not _perfect_ at all.
1) It?s not what Opera has stated it wants to be: fast and fun.
2) It?s the user on the other side I want to make life easier, by letting him view the page in the
minute he opens the email. This is beautiful, I am doing this all the time.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Wojciech E.
>Xpost and fup2 opera.off-topic
>
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:18:20 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg>
>wrote:
>[...]
>>I was trying to say, that using, or not using HTML email does not relate at all with
being
>>professional or unprofessional.
>>
>>To prove that, I answered the question: are there companies, who?s proffesional IT
employees use
>>HTML email? The answer is ?Yes?, so using HTML email is NOT unprofessional at all.
>
>Just because there are companies that use HTML e-mail doesn't
>mean that using HTML e-mail is professional. Just because everyone
>exceeds the speed limit doesn't make it legal.
>
>As I stated in a previous post in an HTML e-mail thread, I'm
>taking a technical writing course write now at school. We were told
>both by our professor and by the Career Development Center for our
>school that sending formatted resumes in the body of an e-mail is a
>sure way to not get the job. I can hardly think of a professional
>communication taken more seriously than a resume. Therefore, my
>conclusion is that HTML e-mail is highly unprofessional.
Well, this is only a theory. Abstract thing. You *may*, but definitely *not* "you will
surely be" rejected from this reason. It's inversed statement that when you send in plain
text you will not be rejected from this reason (truth of course).
>I cannot recall one single HTML e-mail that I've received that
>made the e-mail more readable and useful. If anything, they made the
>e-mails more difficult to read. [...]
Then probably you have contacted inproper people or had no luck. :)
But please... It's imposible to prove it this way (on a NG, in plain text, without any
possibility to attach the example), but I can assure you I have seen a professionally
looking resume in HTML email. Last one yesterday. I will try to describe how it looked:
It contained a photo on the left side, on the right side tastefully formated points like:
Graduaded Schools, Known Languages, Interests and so on. Headers were bolded, the content
was normal text of tastefully adjusted size.
Altogether it was really legible and very impressive. Much more then if:
- it was in plain (sic!) text, with a photo attached (it would look obscure)
- an email contained a link to a web page with the resume (what a stupid idea it would be)
- an email had an attached .rtf or .pdf file with the resume (there wouldn't be the same
impression from the first look, reading external files like .rtf and .pdf requires
additional software)
And all above are "alternatives" suggested by followers of plain-text emails.
None of the above would give the same effect.
I cannot give you a better proof. I only hope this will be enough.
Some people call me... Tim
<voy...@NOSPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
[...]
>But please... It's imposible to prove it this way (on a NG, in plain text, without any
>possibility to attach the example), but I can assure you I have seen a professionally
>looking resume in HTML email. Last one yesterday. I will try to describe how it looked:
>It contained a photo on the left side, on the right side tastefully formated points like:
>Graduaded Schools, Known Languages, Interests and so on. Headers were bolded, the content
>was normal text of tastefully adjusted size.
How would it have looked in my e-mail client?
I will cite an authority on the subject, Monster.com (one of the,
if not the, largest job search site in the United States). I realize
that this may only be relevant for the United States, but responses
from others around the world in this thread would seem to prove
otherwise.
Please see http://resume.monster.com/dosanddonts/online_hunting/,
a FAQ in the "Dos and Don'ts" section of Monster.com's resume pages.
According to that page, resume attachments and formatted resumes
included within an e-mail are bad ideas.
Please see http://resume.monster.com/dosanddonts/asciiresume/, an
article about converting documents created in word processors to ASCII
text, a necessity before sending such documents as attachments.
Please also see http://resume.monster.com/dosanddonts/email/, an
article on how to e-mail your resume in the body of an e-mail. Note
that the article says specifically not to use HTML e-mail. I do
realize that it says to send your resume as an attachment, but
fortunately I don't have to reconcile the hypocrisy on their web site.
:)
>Altogether it was really legible and very impressive. Much more then if:
>- it was in plain (sic!) text, with a photo attached (it would look obscure)
Embedded objects are simply a bad idea in e-mails. Thankfully,
they are disabled by default in Opera's mailer.
>- an email contained a link to a web page with the resume (what a stupid idea it would be)
Not if the page demonstrated your abilities with (X)HTML and CSS
in a job that would require such skills.
>- an email had an attached .rtf or .pdf file with the resume (there wouldn't be the same
>impression from the first look, reading external files like .rtf and .pdf requires
>additional software)
RTF files are easily read by Microsoft Write, a program installed
on any computer running Microsoft Windows 95 and up. They can also be
read by text editors on various other platforms, as they are a
standardized format, unlike MS Word. Sending an attachment made in
Word would be a *bad* idea.
PDF files are easily read with a freeware program available for a
plethora of operating systems. It is also a standard used throughout
the Internet.
>And all above are "alternatives" suggested by followers of plain-text emails.
>None of the above would give the same effect.
That is your opinion. IMHO, the second and third options would
give much better effect.
Rob Pitkin
wrote:
[SNIP]
>It is MY page, I have the right to send it to anyone I bloody well
>want to.
[SNIP]
>--
>Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - l...@hotpop.com
>'Faith without judgment merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Arrr, G/day cobber, you talk like an Aussie, yet yer writin' from where?
Somewhere out the back a woop-woop by the look a yer, jest where ar ya?
I've 'ad me say, somewhere else, jest fort I'd say g/day and chew the fat;
any'ow, bin nice seein' yer agin, drop by 'bout brekky, see ya round mate. Oy!
thanx, for your patience, I could'nt resist, again! CU Opera for free ;-)
-
Rob Pitkin
&
Remember: "Silly is a state of Mind,
Stupid is a way of Life"!
by D. Butler
Haavard K. Moen
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> >To send internal pages (not on a public server) being constructed to
> >other members of the web-desig group placed in different locations.
>
> There's a perfectly acceptable means of doing that already: zip
> the web page and send it as an attachment.
We'll write that down as a feature request. Perhaps it would be nice
to have a "send page" feature which automatically zips up the page and
sends it? Any comments on this? :)
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Perhaps base64 would be better than zip... just attaching the html + the images would be perfect
:)
Add fixing the references in the page to the images, so that the email viewer would be able to
handle them inplace and this is exactly what the "Send Page By Email" feature is about.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Toby A Inkster
> We'll write that down as a feature request. Perhaps it would be nice to
> have a "send page" feature which automatically zips up the page and
> sends it? Any comments on this? :)
Yes... I assume you mean including associated images and CSS files. Also,
add the same feature to "Save Page"!
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
freexone
[...]
>> > that should be professional enough for everyone.
>>
>> The question here is: Did you get the mail from their marketing
>> department or from their tech department? :)
>>
>
>Mostly software developers.
>
>
>Kalin Fetvadjiev
>
Well here's one of my favourite quotes, and very appropriate for that answer:
"Say No . . . . More!"
CU Opera for free . . . .
(thanx to 'Monty Python' and the late great, Eric Idle ;-)
-
Rob Pitkin
#
"Never argue with a fool.
He'll drag you down to his level,
and beat you with experience."
Mark Twain
Jarek Piórkowski
> "Never argue with a fool.
> He'll drag you down to his level,
> and beat you with experience."
I agree three times; what more can I say? I know:
> "Say No . . . . More!"
*plonk* for your new identity too...
--
[ :: Greetings, Jarek Piórkowski :: ]
[ :: ROT-13 on e-mail address or jarek_piorkowski on yahoo.com :: ]
Jernej Simončič
> Pewnego pięknego dnia, freexone wyklawiaturzył:
<snip>
> *plonk* for your new identity too...
That's not his new identity, he's been using it since he started
trolling...
Tim
rpi...@new-no-POP3-operamail.con (Rob Pitkin) wrote:
> My feeling is, that by providing the means to transmit that copyright
> material over a network, Opera may in fact, be contributing to the
> illegal transmission and distribution of said copyright material.
Only as much as the manufacturers of photocopies, cassette recorders,
VCRs, scanners, cameras, etc.
--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Toby A Inkster
> Opera will have to continue to
> add new features to stay competitive.
... as long as HTML isn't one of them, right?
I don't see how you can in one hand say that Opera should be adding as
many new features as possible, but on the other hand say that Opera
shouldn't add HTML mail.
Sure, you might not want Opera to have HTML mail (I personally wouldn't
use the mail Opera client at all, as I'm happy with my current one), but
it's a feature that is clearly popular, so why not add it for those who
want it. I'm not suggesting it should be made compulsorary or even made
the default -- just that Opera mail client users have the *option* to
send HTML mail.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
In a Leipzig elevator: Do not enter the lift backwards, and only when
lit up.
Evan P Herberg
<snip>
> Popular? The majority here is against HTML email.
Yeah -- in this newsgroup that seems to be true! :-)
But I would wager the inhabitants of this newsgroup are by far not representative of the majority of people who use Email -- what I would wonder
is -- regarding the small number of Internet users that use Usenet -- are they representative of Opera users? Perhaps a web page vote of browser
features would be more informative?
As regards to the HTML issue -- it's actually a non-issue to me. It's inevitable at some point in the future ... perhaps later, perhaps sooner
.. but at some point Opera will enable formatting of some kind in email just to stay competitive. I would guess that with the recent explosion
of HTML mail, it's probably close to the majority format right now. My email service administrator recently posted in his forum that by far the
majority of messages that came through the server were from OE -- and formatted. The people who want professional email from me expect it
formatted -- and I find it a convenience to do so anyway. I just can't see even 5 years from now people holding off on formatting after being
raised on Instant Message Environments and graphics in mail because there's still somebody out there reading mail with Mutt off a VT-100
terminal! :-)
Have a good week!
Matthew Winn
> Toby A Inkster napisal w wiadomosci: ...
> >
> > * The user should not have a WYSIWYG tool for writing the HTML -- they
> > should have to write it by hand. This will discourage people from
> > using it when they don't strictly need to, and it will encourage
> > better, easier to read (when viewing source) HTML. Also, it will not
> > add bloat to the program (although as I recall, batboy loves bloat!)
I can't see that this sort of feature would ever be useful to more than
a handful of people. The overwhelming majority of people who think that
HTML-in-email is a good idea will want to _see_ their formatting. They
won't want to know about <b> and <i>.
> But if I write to my friend a simple email, and the only thing I want to do is emphasize
> some phrazes by Bolding/Underlining/Colouring (I know some of you plain-text fanatics hate
> it, but this is the most common usage of HTML in emails)
If that was the only formatting available (or perhaps slightly more) I
wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I'm not completely opposed to
formatting in email, but to work properly it needs to be defined from
scratch as a standard set of elements which can be rendered reasonably
on most displays and which don't make the message unreadable when viewed
as source. HTML was the wrong solution: not only does each vendor have
their own idea of what elements HTML has, but their editors tend to turn
out crap like
<span style="font-weight: 900; color: #000000; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-size: medium; background-color: #ffffff;
some-vendor-specific-characteristic: vendor-bold-tag;">bold</span>
instead of
<b>bold</b>
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Adam i Agnieszka Gasiorowski FNORD
> majority of messages that came through the server were from OE -- and > formatted. The people who want professional email from me expect it
Did he look at these messages? (I hope he didn't ;8)). 99%
of those people are not using any formatting watsoever, they just
send messages in HTML, because Outlook DEFAULTS to this format. They
don't even know they are sending HTML! EVIL, EVIL micro$oft!
--
KULON: wild ass of Terra's Asiatic steppes adapted for Arrakis.
| http://www.hyperreal.info | Sieg Heil Szatan #za kratkami?# | SiRE^23
Adam i Agnieszka Gasiorowski FNORD
> Why? Because it is enabled by default. The inconvenience would lie it
> disabling it.
>
> Disable it by default in OE etc. and no one will use it.
I have seen *tauzens* of HTML formatted emails in my
inbox, and *none* of them used any special formatting (with
exception of special newsletters and SPAMs). I bet those
sending them did not even know, they are sending HTML.
Blame micro$oft! Stupid bastards...
While writing this post I came up with a great idea
for an email filter - parse the body of the message for
formatting tags, like <H1>, and if it does not contain any, we
probably have a legitimate message, else it's SPAM ;8)
--
SPACING GUILD: see Guild.
Ted Baker
news:qgflcuku4esvjgldh...@4ax.com:
I would still prefer to be sent a link that I can open at my own
convenience. I can see where this feature would be useful in the case of a
frequently changing page.
Kalin Fetvadjiev
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:49:16 GMT, Evan P Herberg <her...@cs.und.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps a web page vote of browser features would be more informative?
>
>
> > The people who want professional email from me expect it formatted -- and I find it a
> > convenience to do so anyway.
>
> disabling it.
>
> Disable it by default in OE etc. and no one will use it.
False, you are assuming too much.
1) the majority does not want HTML email.
- ask them and then give that statement please.
2) no one would use it it't hidden
- you are talking about Opera here, remember? one of the advantages of the Opera products is
their configurability (not sure if that's the right word...).
Kalin Fetvadjiev
Gollum
> But if I write to my friend a simple email, and the only thing I want to do is emphasize
It would be better if more email clients supported displaying
text prefixed and suffixed by "*" or "_" as respectively
*bold* and _underlined_. I've seen it in one email client,
possibly Outlook or Mozilla. I'm not sure if there exist a
similar convention for italics. Anyway, bold and underlined
should normally be sufficient.
Maybe we need a standard for such prefixes and suffixes that
can be viewed in pure text mode without looking to messy.
Bold and underlined are already established, while
italics, large, huge and maybe small could be nice to have.
Colours are really uneccessary, but could be used in fixed
font non-graphical clients to display formatted text.
Gollum
> Did he look at these messages? (I hope he didn't ;8)). 99%
> of those people are not using any formatting watsoever, they just
> send messages in HTML, because Outlook DEFAULTS to this format. They
> don't even know they are sending HTML! EVIL, EVIL micro$oft!
Good point.
Even if an email client supports sending HTML email, it would
make sense if it sent the message as HTML _only_ when the author
actually use text formatting. _If_ Opera ever enables sending
HTML email (but I hope they don't), I strongly encourage them to
send only pure text whenever possible.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> "Wojciech E." wrote:
> > But if I write to my friend a simple email, and the only thing I want to do is emphasize
> > some phrazes by Bolding/Underlining/Colouring [..]
>
> It would be better if more email clients supported displaying
> text prefixed and suffixed by "*" or "_" as respectively
> *bold* and _underlined_. I've seen it in one email client,
> possibly Outlook or Mozilla.
There are plenty of clients understanding this convention,
Gnus in XEmacs is another, but I *think* it is more common
on unix-based news readers.
> I'm not sure if there exist a
> similar convention for italics.
There /is/. Prefix and suffix with a slash '/'.
> Maybe we need a standard for such prefixes and suffixes that
> can be viewed in pure text mode without looking to messy.
Those three are de-facto standard, and have been for a long time.
I must admit I am not sure how to emphasize several words in a row...
as *several emphasized words* or as *several*emphasized*words*.
Let's see what my reader shows this as :)
Regards
/L
Evan P Herberg
On yesterday's "Call for Help" program on TechTV -- they demonstrated the HTML'iest of the HTML email programs, Incredimail.
http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/freefile/story/0,24330,3360445,00.html
Gollum
> To prove that, I answered the question: are there companies, who?s proffesional IT employees use
> HTML email? The answer is ?Yes?, so using HTML email is NOT unprofessional at all.
This really depends on what meaning of "professional" you use.
If you're talking about doing something as a full-time job,
you're right. But sending HTML email is not professional
in the sense of "having or showing the skill or qualities of
a professional person".
Spammers, the worst HTML email abusers, are often professionals
in the first sense, but certainly not in the second.
Jarek Piórkowski
> On a side note -- this ought to cheese off a few posters here! :-)
>
> On yesterday's "Call for Help" program on TechTV -- they
> demonstrated the HTML'iest of the HTML email programs,
> Incredimail.
My friend was using it sometime...
What message source looked like was a real pain! There were about 15
tags in there, looking like Absde: kfbsha. The message itself was a bit
unreadable before. I saw once a person composing an e-mail in Hotmail,
it was green text on pink background :(((
--
[ :: Greetings :: switch 'net' and 'sf' :: ]
[ :: Jarek Piórkowski :: around in my e-mail :: ]
[ :: Feel lucky? Upgrade your software :: ]
Gollum
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:38:07 GMT, Kalin Fetvadjiev <kf...@wizcom.bg>
> wrote:
> > I do write HTML emails using Opera mail composer and EditPlus and a couple of tricks.
> > But why should this feature be left out of the reach of a newbie, who won't be capable of doing
> > all the stuff by himself?
>
> Because HTML does not belong in email.
Sending an HTML page as an _attachment_ should be OK, just
like any other file attachment like JPG, GIF, ZIP, DOC and
TXT (but not VBS...), as long as you send it to someone you
know accept file attachments.
But it should only be used when the original page may change
or disappaer before the receiver reads the email; otherwise
send the URL!
Gollum
> As a former semi-pro musician, I feel particularly strongly about copywrite.
I'm not trying to be impolite, but if copyright is so important
to you, you should learn how to spell it. ;-)
Gollum
> If you want fun put on a red nose and a pink wig and run naked around
> the block.
I suppose this also applies to people in Saudi Arabia and Iran?
;->
Gollum
> And it's just Outlook Express with a skin anyway.
So it's still able to run viruses...
;->
Rob aka . . . . . . . .
Heh, thanx, the spellin' don't matter much,
as long as I get my royalty cheque on time every Feb. I am not worried.
every year
Peter Karlsson
> http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/freefile/story/0,24330,3360445,00.html
Hmm, quote from the page: "IncrediMail will make you the jewel of your
friends' inboxes"... I think the word they're looking for is "kidney stone",
not "jewel".
--
\\//
peter, developer / utvecklare / utvikler / Entwickler, Opera Software
The opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer.
Please reply only by follow-ups in the newsgroup.
Rob aka . . . . . . . .
. . .) wrote:
>
>Heh, thanx, the spellin' don't matter much,
> as long as I get my royalty cheque on time every Feb. I am not worried.
every year is a record low! ;-)
rob
Toby A Inkster
> What a bloody brilliant idea! Opera could include an option to interpret
> *this*, _this_ and /this/ and display it as bold, underline and italic
> respectively.
Magic string matching is always risky. For instance, what if I were to
send you a piece of maths:
(3*4)/2 = 6
Is this part of the message now in bold and italics?
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
In an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist: Teeth extrcted by the
latest Methodists.
Toby A Inkster
> On a side note -- this ought to cheese off a few posters here! :-)
I like the "Windows XP dancing letters" feature. ;-)
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
In an advertisement by a Hong Kong dentist: Teeth extrcted by the
latest Methodists.
Jonathan Fosburgh
$dckmq$1...@ID-66426.news.dfncis.de:
>
> Magic string matching is always risky. For instance, what if I were to
> send you a piece of maths:
>
> (3*4)/2 = 6
>
> Is this part of the message now in bold and italics?
>
I doubt it. There's no closing * or /. The code would have to have some
sort of regexp to look for something that begins and ends with a *, /, or a
combination of the both, and has no space separation. TWiki
(www.twiki.org) does this, look in the TWikiShorthand section, though they
use slightly different notation.
Gollum
> (3*4)/2 = 6
>
> Is this part of the message now in bold and italics?
A requirement for e.g. bold could be something like this:
1. A "*" preceded by a space or nonprintable character (like CR or LF)
2. One or more consecutive printable characters, excluding space
and _maybe_ some special characters like ()+-.
3. A "*" followed by a space, punctuation mark (.,:;?!) or
nonprintable character.
Used in a mathematical expression, a "*" should be used either
with spaces both before and after:
3 * 4 * 5
or with no spaces at all:
3*4*5
Both will fail the criteria above.
There may be a few cases where the author has been sloppy and
written e.g. "3 *4* 5", but for these cases it should be sufficient
with an option to view the message in the regular way.
I assume there should be little need to emphasize only parts of a word.
Emphasizing consecutive words can be more tricky. I'm not sure if
there are any conventions for this. Bold and italics may be achieved
by /marking/ /each/ *word* *individually*, since the spaces doesn't
matter.
Underlining is worse, but here we don't have to worry about math
expressions, so we might assume that we may start _here and end here_.
This might however cause some problems with C code, where some variables
are sometimes prefixed with "_". It may also be more complicated to
implement, since the email may have to scan the entire email in
vain for an terminating underscore.
Probably _this_is_better_, and it also looks more sensible when
viewed in the regular way. The intermediate underscores are treated
just like ordinary underscores, since they have no leading or trailing
spaces. Or we may simply mark _each_ _word_ _individually_ and let the
email client underline the spaces between consecutive underlined words.
The two latter methods could probably both be implemented without too
much trouble.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
> > (3*4)/2 = 6
> >
> > Is this part of the message now in bold and italics?
>
> A requirement for e.g. bold could be something like this:
> 1. A "*" preceded by a space or nonprintable character (like CR or LF)
> 2. One or more consecutive printable characters, excluding space
> and _maybe_ some special characters like ()+-.
> 3. A "*" followed by a space, punctuation mark (.,:;?!) or
> nonprintable character.
Very good guess! The regular expression used by GNUS is indeed:
underline: \(\s-\|^\)\(_\(\(\w\|_[^_]\)+\)_\)\(\s-\|[?!.,;]\)
which reads something like:
a whitespace or the beginning of a line
followed by an underscore
followed by one or more
"word constituents" or underscore followed by non-underscore
followed by an underscore
followed by a whitespace or one of the punctuations ?!.,; (no colon?)
It then underlines the middle part and drops the surrounding underscores.
That would mean that __foo_ is underlined. I'll see that when I read it
later :)
The results are :
> 3 * 4 * 5
> 3*4*5
> Both will fail the criteria above.
Neither are emphasized
> There may be a few cases where the author has been sloppy and
> written e.g. "3 *4* 5",
four is emphasized.
> so we might assume that we may start _here and end here_.
underlined correctly
> Probably _this_is_better_,
also underlined all the way, including the "is".
All in all, it works pretty well in most cases. Now, I need to turn
emoticon-conversion off in GNUS/XEmacs :)
hmm, are we getting off-topic here?
Matthew Winn
[re: GNUS]
> The results are :
>
> > 3 * 4 * 5
> > 3*4*5
> > Both will fail the criteria above.
>
> Neither are emphasized
>
> > There may be a few cases where the author has been sloppy and
> > written e.g. "3 *4* 5",
>
> four is emphasized.
>
> > so we might assume that we may start _here and end here_.
>
> underlined correctly
>
> > Probably _this_is_better_,
>
> also underlined all the way, including the "is".
slrn does the same except it doesn't treat _words_like_this_ specially
(no highlighting at all), which is a shame.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Johan H. Borg
> What a bloody brilliant idea! Opera could include an option to interpret
> *this*, _this_ and /this/ and display it as bold, underline and italic
> respectively.
Now this is probably the way HTML was invented in the first place:
What a bloody brilliant idea! Browsers could include an option to interpret
<b>this</b>, <u>this</u> and <i>this</i> and display it as bold, underline
and italic respectively.
:o)
Johan.
Adam i Agnieszka Gasiorowski FNORD
> What a bloody brilliant idea! Browsers could include an option to interpret
> <b>this</b>, <u>this</u> and <i>this</i> and display it as bold, underline
> and italic respectively.
HTML is just a weak subset of SGML - read aboot it, now
this is incredible...
--
EL-SAYAL: the "rain of sand." A fall of dust which has been carried to
medium altitude (around 2,000 meters) by a coriolis storm. El-sayals
frequently bring moisture to ground level.
Toby A Inkster
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>> (3*4)/2 = 6
>>
>> Is this part of the message now in bold and italics?
>
> A requirement for e.g. bold could be something like this:
Granted, there are smarter regexps, but my point is that any markup that
relies on magic strings is ambiguous and thus fundamentally flawed.
HTML on the other hand is well-designed and unambiguous.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
From a brochure of a car rental firm in Tokyo: When passenger of foot
heave in sight, tootle the horn. Trumpet him melodiously at first,
but if he still obstacles your passage then tootle him with vigor.
Haavard K. Moen
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> HTML on the other hand is well-designed and unambiguous.
But not universally compatible with all e-mail clients. The "*_/"
system would be compatible, as it doesn't introduce anything new. It
would just be a convenience.
Toby A Inkster
I am still waiting for someone to post a list of three mail clients that
can't handle HTML mail. The closest we've had so far are:
* Mutt - if lynx is installed can pipe the HTML through lynx and display
it as if it was a plain text message. Lynx is nearly always installed.
* PINE - can do the same as Mutt.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
On the menu of a Polish hotel: Salad a firm's own make; limpid red
beet soup with cheesy dumplings in the form of a finger; roasted duck
let loose; beef rashers beaten up in the country people's fashion.
Jarek Piórkowski
>>> HTML on the other hand is well-designed and unambiguous.
>>
>> But not universally compatible with all e-mail clients. The "*_/"
>> system would be compatible, as it doesn't introduce anything new.
>> It would just be a convenience.
>
> I am still waiting for someone to post a list of three mail
> clients that can't handle HTML mail. The closest we've had so far
> are:
If I was to write a very basic mail client just for purposes of this
discussion, would it still count? :)
Toby A Inkster
> If I was to write a very basic mail client just for purposes of this
> discussion, would it still count? :)
Errr... that would be going to an awful lot of effort to prove a point.
Not that you could consider the point truly proved.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
In a Bangkok temple: It is forbidden to enter a woman even a foreigner
if dressed as a man.
Haavard K. Moen
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> I am still waiting for someone to post a list of three mail clients that
> can't handle HTML mail.
Displaying HTML e-mail is not the problem. However, *handling* it
properly is. How many e-mail clients have full-featured web browsers
built in, including user CSS support so the user isn't forced to view
the mail in a particular way?
Richard Grevers
said...
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 21:38:12 +0100, Toby A Inkster
> <UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > I am still waiting for someone to post a list of three mail clients that
> > can't handle HTML mail.
>
posted a screenshot of the sort of unreadable mess you can end up with -
all the text except links the same colour as the background.
Toby A Inkster
It doesn't handle it *natively*, but it can handle HTML. See the pmmail
2000 faq, question 1.29
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
Similarly, from the Soviet Weekly: There will be a Moscow Exhibition
of Arts by 15,000 Soviet Republic painters and sculptors. These were
executed over the past two years.
Matthew Winn
> It doesn't handle it *natively*, but it can handle HTML.
If your definition of a client which can handle HTML email includes
those which require additional software then yes, all clients can
handle HTML, because all allow the saving of messages to a file which
can then be manually loaded into a browser. But when users -- rather
than pedants -- talk of "supporting HTML" they're referring to native
support: both HTML and plain text messages transparently displayed in
the client without the need for additional software and with the user
being unaware of the difference in format.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Toby A Inkster
> If your definition of a client which can handle HTML email includes
> those which require additional software then yes, all clients can handle
> HTML, because all allow the saving of messages to a file which can then
> be manually loaded into a browser.
I wouldn't count this as "handling HTML" personally. My definition is
recognising that the message is in HTML and acting in an appropriate way
to present the information to the user.
Merely allowing the user to save the file and open it in a browser
implies that the software doesn't recognise the message as HTML amd treat
it differently from other messages.
> But when users -- rather than
> pedants -- talk of "supporting HTML" they're referring to native
> support: both HTML and plain text messages transparently displayed in
> the client without the need for additional software
Well, according to Microsoft, a browser isn't "additional software" --
it's an underlying part of the operating system. And all mail clients use
parts of the operating system (unless they use a widget-set sepeperate
from the OS -- eg: QT, GTK, etc) for displaying click-buttons, text
boxes, etc.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq. ~ http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/
mailto:tobyink<at>goddamn.co.uk ~ gpg:0x5274FE5A
jabber:tobyink<at>amessage.de ~ icq:6622880 ~ aim:inka80 ~ yahoo:tobyink
In a Swiss mountain inn: Special today -- no ice cream.
Matthew Winn
> On Tue, 07 May 2002 08:54:24 +0100, Matthew Winn wrote:
>
> > If your definition of a client which can handle HTML email includes
> > those which require additional software then yes, all clients can handle
> > HTML, because all allow the saving of messages to a file which can then
> > be manually loaded into a browser.
>
> I wouldn't count this as "handling HTML" personally. My definition is
> recognising that the message is in HTML and acting in an appropriate way
> to present the information to the user.
>
> Merely allowing the user to save the file and open it in a browser
> implies that the software doesn't recognise the message as HTML amd treat
> it differently from other messages.
Clients like Mutt and Agent don't recognise the message as HTML. They
just recognise it as a MIME type they can't display for themselves and
hand it over to external software for processing. If the software to
handle that MIME type isn't installed, or if it is installed but nothing
has been configured to say that it has to be called to handle that MIME
type, then the message can't be displayed.
> > But when users -- rather than
> > pedants -- talk of "supporting HTML" they're referring to native
> > support: both HTML and plain text messages transparently displayed in
> > the client without the need for additional software
>
> Well, according to Microsoft, a browser isn't "additional software" --
> it's an underlying part of the operating system.
But nobody believes that. IE is just a program Microsoft stuck in the
Windows directory. It's no more a part of the Windows OS than curses is
part of the Unix kernel.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
freexone
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
[...]
>Well, according to Microsoft,
"Say No . . . More!"
-
free....