Possibility to import HTML-written Code in new Mailclient of Opera 7
Ralf Kammerer
I know that at the moment all People of Opera work hard to write the new
Mail- & Newsclient.
I (nearly) always use Opera's Mailclient. Nearly, because I now had the
problem that I wanted to send a HTML-Mail. I know that Axel Siebert is
against that but there are cases you need it.
So I wanted to ask, if it is possible that I write HTML in an editor and
so to say "import" it or do "copy & paste" in Opera's Mailclient. At the
moment, Opera is "only" capable of displaying HTML-Mail but one cannot
send one.
Maybe a fetaure to be built in in the new Mailclient?
--
Happy Easter,
http://www.geocities.com/ralfi77de/
http://home.arcor.de/ralfkammerer/fh-aalen/
Haavard K. Moen
<RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
> I (nearly) always use Opera's Mailclient. Nearly, because I now had the
> problem that I wanted to send a HTML-Mail. I know that Axel Siebert is
> against that but there are cases you need it.
>
> So I wanted to ask, if it is possible that I write HTML in an editor and
> so to say "import" it or do "copy & paste" in Opera's Mailclient. At the
> moment, Opera is "only" capable of displaying HTML-Mail but one cannot
> send one.
I'm afraid there are no plans to allow composing or sending HTML mail.
The problem with HTML mail is that it ignores these important areas:
- Accessibility
- Privacy/security
- Compatbility
When someone receives a mail, it is up to them how the mail should be
viewed. HTML mail adds too much unnecessary extra code, and is not
universally readable. By adding images to HTML mail, one can
potentially spy on users, and we do not wish to contribute to this.
Toby A Inkster
> I'm afraid there are no plans to allow composing or sending HTML mail.
> The problem with HTML mail is that it ignores these important areas:
>
> - Accessibility
> - Privacy/security
> - Compatbility
You could allow people to edit the "Content-Type" header of their email
though (as some advanced feature, on a per-email basis). People could
then cut-and-paste HTML from their favourite editor if they *really*
needed to do so.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 15 days, 2:25
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
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.
Frode Gill
> You could allow people to edit the "Content-Type" header of their email
> though (as some advanced feature, on a per-email basis). People could
> then cut-and-paste HTML from their favourite editor if they *really*
> needed to do so.
We can of course not allow this. But I wonder, when do people *really* have
to send HTML-mails? One of the things I've learnt from reading opera.*, is
that no matter how stupid an action might sound, there are always people
having a reasonable reason for doing it. Anyone having a good reason for
sending an HTML-mail (with content-type text/html, and not the friendly way
of sending a URL inside a text/plain or as an attached .html-file)?
--
Frode Gill
Ralf Kammerer
"Haavard K. Moen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:51:19 +0200, "Ralf Kammerer"
> <RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > I (nearly) always use Opera's Mailclient. Nearly, because I now had
the
> > problem that I wanted to send a HTML-Mail. At the
> > moment, Opera is "only" capable of displaying HTML-Mail but one
cannot
> > send one.
>
> I'm afraid there are no plans to allow composing or sending HTML mail.
> The problem with HTML mail is that it ignores these important areas:
>
> - Accessibility
> - Privacy/security
> - Compatbility
>
> When someone receives a mail, it is up to them how the mail should be
> viewed. HTML mail adds too much unnecessary extra code, and is not
> universally readable. By adding images to HTML mail, one can
> potentially spy on users, and we do not wish to contribute to this.
Hmm? When I look at the code of a HTML-Mail, I can see the same tags as
used in WWW.
So to "Accessibility", one only needs a browser to view it. My browser
is Opera and it is already loaded when reading or writing mails as I use
Opera's built-in mailclient..
To "Privacy/security": Why is it security problem, when I write a
HTML-Mail? It maybe a security problem when viewing HTML-mail received
from unknown.
To "Compatibility": If one stick to the same rules as in WWW, where is
the problem? Is a HTML-Mail not the same as a Webside?
I admit that HTML-Mail is not often necessary. Normally, I am glad with
"Normal-Mail". But there are cases one wants to emphasize something.
There are the same reasons why there are lots of tags in HTML. If there
would be no necessity of tags like <b>, <h1>, <u>, <a...>, and so on,
one would not use it in WWW and all browsers on the market were not so
huge. HTML-Mail against Normal-Mail is somehow the same question as
Text-Browsers like Lynx to Opera, IE and Netscape.
Not only HTML-Mail boosts a mail to big size, but also attachments
because of the coding.
I would appreciate it, if there would be future plans to let Opera's
Mailclient send HTML-Mails. I promise that I will only use it if
necessary... :))
To sum it up:: At the end I think, that there will be NO way back. Also
HTML-Mail will be - as always in human history - no question of
necessity but of feasibility. So it will be used and therefore it would
be good to have Opera's Mailclient compose or import a HTML-Mail.
Do you understand what I mean?
--
Toby A Inkster
> We can of course not allow this.
I don't see why not. Opera has traditionally been very flexible towards
its users, allowing them to over-ride standards and common practice if
they really want to (lying about browser ID, rejecting cookies,
over-riding author style-sheets, ignoring tables and turning off SSL for
example). This is a Good Thing.
So long as it's not the default and the user is warned about the
consequences of deviating from the standards, I see no reason not to
include it as a feature.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 15 days, 3:00
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
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.
Frode Gill
> "Haavard K. Moen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>
>> I'm afraid there are no plans to allow composing or sending HTML mail.
>> The problem with HTML mail is that it ignores these important areas:
>>
>> - Accessibility
>> - Privacy/security
>> - Compatbility
>
> Hmm? When I look at the code of a HTML-Mail, I can see the same tags as
> used in WWW.
>
> So to "Accessibility", one only needs a browser to view it. My browser
> is Opera and it is already loaded when reading or writing mails as I use
> Opera's built-in mailclient..
Do you know that the person receiving your HTML-tags are using a mail-
client capable of displaying them?
> To "Privacy/security": Why is it security problem, when I write a
> HTML-Mail? It maybe a security problem when viewing HTML-mail received
> from unknown.
It is a privacy-issue if the mail relies on external objects (images,
frames etc), and it is a security-issue if the mail relies on using
ecmascript or cookies.
> To "Compatibility": If one stick to the same rules as in WWW, where is
> the problem? Is a HTML-Mail not the same as a Webside?
A HTML-mail is the same as a webpage, but a mailclient is not the same as a
browser.
> I would appreciate it, if there would be future plans to let Opera's
> Mailclient send HTML-Mails.
That would be over my dead <BODY>.
--
Frode Gill
Ralf Kammerer
"Frode Gill" <frod...@opera.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns91E3B93D8F501...@news.opera.no...
Why not give the possibilty? I would appreciate it even I would not use
it very often. But it gives me the possibility to use it if I really
needs it. Everybody with a email-address has a WWW-Browser I think. HTML
is a worldwide standard. So if I want to send a better looking text, I
can use e.g. Microsoft Word. But does really everyone have Word? Or I
can use pdf? In the end, HTML may be the best, I think.
Why was there a need of WWW, if one could read all using text-browsers
like lynx? If you only send mails with tow lines, there is no
possibility of a HTML-Mail. But if you send much bigger Mails, sometimes
it would be great to have HTML-possibilities.
And as I have said just one posting before: Don't apparaise a
possibility as not useful, because YOU don't like it or cannot find a
useful function. There will be useful function. In the end there is no
question of real necessity but of feasability. What is possible will be
used in the end. If human kind needs it or not. So I think, HTML-Mail
will be used for some kind of content and has herefore its jusification.
> > You could allow people to edit the "Content-Type" header of their
email
> > though (as some advanced feature, on a per-email basis). People
could
> > then cut-and-paste HTML from their favourite editor if they *really*
> > needed to do so.
Great idea! I support this opinion. It would be great if it's possible.
--
Ralf Kammerer
> That would be over my dead <BODY>.
I do not think it is worth of braking some progress by one's life... :))
Let's wait two or three years and no one will discuss any more on
HTML-Mail. One uses it as one ueses cellular phones. I myself never
wanted such a thing and now I have one - but I only use it very seldom.
I said the same as you said above - but I am still alive... :)
Give it a try - even you do not like it. There will be customers
appreciating it! Me included.
>> To "Compatibility": If one stick to the same rules as in WWW, where
is
>> the problem? Is a HTML-Mail not the same as a Webside?
>A HTML-mail is the same as a webpage, but a mailclient is not the same
as a
>browser.
Then the mailclient should be made equal to the browser to wipe out
mailclient's disabilities.
--
Happy Easter,
Some people call me... Tim
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
[..]
>You could allow people to edit the "Content-Type" header of their email
>though (as some advanced feature, on a per-email basis). People could
>then cut-and-paste HTML from their favourite editor if they *really*
>needed to do so.
Why would they really need to do so?
--
Tim Altman
roy...@myrealSP-AMbox.com
No SP-AM is good spam.
Frode Gill
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:12:31 +0100, Frode Gill wrote:
>
>> We can of course not allow this.
>
> I don't see why not. Opera has traditionally been very flexible towards
> its users, allowing them to over-ride standards and common practice if
> they really want to (lying about browser ID, rejecting cookies,
> over-riding author style-sheets, ignoring tables and turning off SSL for
> example). This is a Good Thing.
These things don't compare at all. The examples all deal with how you view
things and how you receive things. What you are talking about with the
HTML-mail hack is how you will force stuff onto others. Who is responsible
for producing a valid e-mail? Stuff like content boundaries, charset
encoding, header consistency (and I'm not even going to start on the
security-aspect of this!).
What will the receiver think of Opera when he gets an invalid mail with
Opera in the userAgent-string? I can guarantee you will find lots of tweaks
and settings in the new mailer, but you will defintly not be able to paste
a body and keep old headers.
--
Frode Gill
Haavard K. Moen
<RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hmm? When I look at the code of a HTML-Mail, I can see the same tags as
> used in WWW.
But e-mail is not the web.
> So to "Accessibility", one only needs a browser to view it. My browser
> is Opera and it is already loaded when reading or writing mails as I use
> Opera's built-in mailclient..
An e-mail client is not a browser, and not all e-mail clients support
HTML mail.
> To "Privacy/security": Why is it security problem, when I write a
> HTML-Mail? It maybe a security problem when viewing HTML-mail received
> from unknown.
Although most HTML capable e-mail clients today have disabled
scripting by default, using scripts in HTML mail poses a security
risk. In addition to this, there are ways to, for instance, use images
to track the mail, and log when the mail is read, who is reading it
and so on.
> To "Compatibility": If one stick to the same rules as in WWW, where is
> the problem? Is a HTML-Mail not the same as a Webside?
But an e-mail client is not a web browser. What you can do is to send
a link to a web page, rather than embedding it in the mail. You could
also send a HTML page as an attachment.
That way, the mail would be pure text, but the attachment could be
opened in a browser.
> I admit that HTML-Mail is not often necessary. Normally, I am glad with
> "Normal-Mail". But there are cases one wants to emphasize something.
You can do /this/ or *this* or _this_.
> There are the same reasons why there are lots of tags in HTML. If there
> would be no necessity of tags like <b>, <h1>, <u>, <a...>, and so on,
> one would not use it in WWW and all browsers on the market were not so
> huge. HTML-Mail against Normal-Mail is somehow the same question as
> Text-Browsers like Lynx to Opera, IE and Netscape.
The point of HTML was to use such tags, while e-mail is intended to be
pure text.
When you send an e-mail to someone, they have no choice but to receive
it. When you open a web page, you yourself have chosen to view it.
Do you see the difference here? If you send me an e-mail, it is my
right to choose how to view it, as you are the initiator (I have "no
choice"). However, if I open your homepage, I am the initiator, and
the control of the contents/look is, to a large degree, yours
(although I have the right to reserve myself agains anyone trying to
take over my browser of course).
> Not only HTML-Mail boosts a mail to big size, but also attachments
> because of the coding.
>
> I would appreciate it, if there would be future plans to let Opera's
> Mailclient send HTML-Mails. I promise that I will only use it if
> necessary... :))
There are no plans at the moment, and I will fight to keep it so :)
> To sum it up:: At the end I think, that there will be NO way back. Also
> HTML-Mail will be - as always in human history - no question of
> necessity but of feasibility. So it will be used and therefore it would
> be good to have Opera's Mailclient compose or import a HTML-Mail.
>
> Do you understand what I mean?
Yes, but I will continue to fight HTML mail and always read my own
mail as pure text. I don't understand the fascination with HTML mail.
I can't think of a single use for it which couldn't be done better in
some other way.
Haavard K. Moen
<RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> To "Compatibility": If one stick to the same rules as in WWW, where
> >> is the problem? Is a HTML-Mail not the same as a Webside?
> >> A HTML-mail is the same as a webpage, but a mailclient is not the
> >> same as a browser.
>
> Then the mailclient should be made equal to the browser to wipe out
> mailclient's disabilities.
Not composing HTML mail is not a disadvantage. In fact, is is clearly
in line with the rest of Opera's missions. IMO, allowing for composing
HTML mail would be about the same as starting to emulate IE or even
using IE's engine through Opera :)
This is as much of a ideological issue as it is a technical one.
Haavard K. Moen
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > We can of course not allow this.
>
> I don't see why not. Opera has traditionally been very flexible towards
> its users, allowing them to over-ride standards and common practice if
> they really want to (lying about browser ID, rejecting cookies,
> over-riding author style-sheets, ignoring tables and turning off SSL for
> example). This is a Good Thing.
The things you mention here are all done to help the user modify his
*own* experience of the web. That is completely different from forcing
a certain format on someone (for example by sending HTML formatted
e-mail).
HTML mail does not give the user control. It takes control away from
the user (that is me, the user who has to read the mail). Should we
contribute to this?
> So long as it's not the default and the user is warned about the
> consequences of deviating from the standards, I see no reason not to
> include it as a feature.
The reasons are a mix of technical and ideological reasons:
- Accessibility
- Security/privacy
- Compatibility
Read our mission statement, and you will find that HTML mail breaks
the very foundations of what Opera stands for. At least in my opinion.
But if you see the obvious problems with HTML mail (see above), I
think many will come to the same conclusion:
Haavard K. Moen
<RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Why not give the possibilty? I would appreciate it even I would not use
> it very often. But it gives me the possibility to use it if I really
> needs it. Everybody with a email-address has a WWW-Browser I think. HTML
> is a worldwide standard. So if I want to send a better looking text, I
> can use e.g. Microsoft Word. But does really everyone have Word? Or I
> can use pdf? In the end, HTML may be the best, I think.
Why do you need it? Why not:
- Put the emphasis on the contents, rather than the formatting?
- Send a link to a web page containing the HTML?
- Send a HTML file as an attachment?
> Why was there a need of WWW, if one could read all using text-browsers
> like lynx?
HTML is a markup language, and lynx supports HTML.
> If you only send mails with tow lines, there is no possibility of a
> HTML-Mail. But if you send much bigger Mails, sometimes it would be
> great to have HTML-possibilities.
Why?
> And as I have said just one posting before: Don't apparaise a
> possibility as not useful, because YOU don't like it or cannot find a
> useful function.
I again bring up this URL:
http://www.opera.com/press/manifesto.html
Should Opera move away from its foundation? From what Opera is about?
I have explained what the issues are when sending HTML mail, and will
not repeat them here. See other posts in this thread.
Accessibility, security, privacy, compatibility. Taking control away
from the receiver and giving it to the sender:
sender <-> receiver
-----------------------------------
sender of mail <-> receiver of mail
webpage author <-> webpage viewer
Opera has traditionally been very concerned with the people in the
right column. Why should this change because of HTML mail, something
which isn't even necessary? It would almost be like removing features
like user CSS, disabling images, etc.
> There will be useful function. In the end there is no question of real
> necessity but of feasability. What is possible will be used in the end.
> If human kind needs it or not. So I think, HTML-Mail will be used for
> some kind of content and has herefore its jusification.
Still, it will not be possible to do with Opera's e-mail client.
Microsoft found it feasible to create their own standards, and went
with it even when they dominated the browser market. Look what that
lead to.
Some people call me... Tim
<RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
>I admit that HTML-Mail is not often necessary. Normally, I am glad with
>"Normal-Mail". But there are cases one wants to emphasize something.
Rarely do I found boldface, underlined, or italic text within
literary works. Surely if a book doesn't need these extra means of
emphasis, then e-mail can do without it too?
Some people call me... Tim
Could you possibly post your posts in plaintext? My newsreader
doesn't support HTML, so I can't read what you wrote. Thanks. :P
Toby A Inkster
> These things don't compare at all. The examples all deal with how you
> view things and how you receive things. What you are talking about with
> the HTML-mail hack is how you will force stuff onto others.
Sending misleading browser IDs is not to do with "how you receive things"
-- it is to do with how you send things.
> Who is
> responsible for producing a valid e-mail? Stuff like content
> boundaries,
text/html doesn't need content boundaries -- only multipart/* does.
I am personally against HTML mail in general and don't use it. However,
it is a well-defined standard -- HTML as defined by the W3C, and MIME as
defined across several RFCs -- and denying people the right to use it is
only going to encourage some people not to use Opera for email.
The ability to edit a few headers will only add a few lines of code to
the product, and if switched off by default wouldn't encourage an
overwhelming use of HTML amongst Opera users.
> What will the receiver think of Opera when he gets an invalid mail with
> Opera in the userAgent-string?
I'm using Opera 6B1 for Linux, which has no mailer, but even I can send
invalid mail with Opera in the User-Agent string. :-)
$ telnet localhost 25
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 15 days, 4:33
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
In a Tokyo shop: Our nylons cost more than common, but you'll find
they are best in the long run.
Haavard K. Moen
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > These things don't compare at all. The examples all deal with how you
> > view things and how you receive things. What you are talking about with
> > the HTML-mail hack is how you will force stuff onto others.
>
> Sending misleading browser IDs is not to do with "how you receive things"
> -- it is to do with how you send things.
But what you receive depends on which id you are reporting as. Again,
this benefits the reader, as the reader has more control over what
appears in the browser. Not so when sending HTML mail, where the
sender is in control. This is the big difference.
Toby A Inkster
> Although most HTML capable e-mail clients today have disabled scripting
> by default, using scripts in HTML mail poses a security risk. In
> addition to this, there are ways to, for instance, use images to track
> the mail, and log when the mail is read, who is reading it and so on.
Opera (for Windows) **already** has this problem though, because (IIRC)
it can already display HTML mail.
> What you can do is to send
> a link to a web page, rather than embedding it in the mail. You could
> also send a HTML page as an attachment.
Both of which solutions have almost the same privacy/security issues.
> The point of HTML was to use such tags, while e-mail is intended to be
> pure text.
The first RFC defining MIME was written in 1993. Not allowing mail to
contain HTML in 2002 is like not allowing HTML to cotain IMG tags because
they weren't part of the original HTML developed at CERN (again, IIRC).
> I can't think of a single use for it which couldn't be done better in
> some other way.
Neither can I, but that doesn't mean nobody else can.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 15 days, 4:46
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
In a Tokyo bar: Special cocktails for the ladies with nuts.
Toby A Inkster
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>
> <script LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
> function annoy()
> {
> while (true)
> window.alert("HTML mail can have some nasty side-effects")
> }
> </script>
> </head>
> <body onLoad="annoy()">
> </body>
> </html>
It can, but the nasty side-effects only apply to the receiver. More
reason for extra programming on the side of the mail viewer.
If someone's sufficiently determined to annoy() you, Opera's ability not
to allow HTML mail sending isn't going to deter them -- they'll just use
telnet or another mail client.
On the other hand, if someone just wants to throw some <b>...</b> and
<i>...</i> tags into their message and can't using Opera, that could be
sufficient reason for them to go to a competitor instead.
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 15 days, 5:01
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
In the office of a Roman doctor: Specialist in women and other
diseases.
Frode Gill
$qhae8$1...@ID-66426.news.dfncis.de:
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 18:04:40 +0100, Frode Gill wrote:
>
>> These things don't compare at all. The examples all deal with how you
>> view things and how you receive things. What you are talking about
>> with the HTML-mail hack is how you will force stuff onto others.
>
> Sending misleading browser IDs is not to do with "how you receive
> things" -- it is to do with how you send things.
Ask yourself - do you change browser-ID to please yourself, or to please
the web-server?
--
Frode Gill
Jernej Simonèiè
> Rarely do I found boldface, underlined, or italic text within
> literary works. Surely if a book doesn't need these extra means of
> emphasis, then e-mail can do without it too?
You can use *bold*, /italic/ and _underline_ with text, too :)
(Oh, and some books have some text in italics)
--
Jernej Simoncic, jernej....@guest.arnes.si
http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/
ICQ: 26266467
Jernej Simonèiè
> My newsreader
> doesn't support HTML, so I can't read what you wrote. Thanks. :P
My doesn't either, but I have a nice little button, which clears the
text of all HTML tags :)
Jernej Simonèiè
> But I wonder, when do people *really* have
> to send HTML-mails?
So far, I only had to send HTML once: I had to show a computer
illiterate friend step-by-step how to attach a file in Outlook Express
(the first time with written instructions - no HTML - it didn't work, so
I took some screenshots and embedded them in the message). I don't see
any other reasons for HTML...
Jernej Simonèiè
> On the other hand, if someone just wants to throw some <b>...</b> and
> <i>...</i> tags into their message and can't using Opera, that could be
> sufficient reason for them to go to a competitor instead.
If you need *bold* text, mark it as *bold*...
Jernej Simonèiè
> You might as well have posted this on a web site and given him the URL
> to click on to see the instructions.
Her :)
And, it was easier for me to send that in e-mail (at that time I was
still using OE), than uploading to WWW...
Some people call me... Tim
<jernej....@guest.arnes.si> wrote:
>On 01. 04. 02 12:51:21, Some people call me... Tim wrote:
>
>> Rarely do I found boldface, underlined, or italic text within
>> literary works. Surely if a book doesn't need these extra means of
>> emphasis, then e-mail can do without it too?
>
>You can use *bold*, /italic/ and _underline_ with text, too :)
>
>(Oh, and some books have some text in italics)
Yes, but rarely for emphasis. I've seen thoughts and narration
put into italics, but that's usually it.
Brodie
a customer. If there is a demand for HTML mail then you need to
provide at least a small concession towards that desire - you don't
have to do the 'full monty', just provide basic ability to insert
things like bold, italic, ordered and unordered lists, and indents.
I rarely send HTML email. I send it only when I want to use markup for
emphasis - bold, italic, lists of points, etc. I send it when I know
my recipient can view it. It is my choice to send it (I want that
choice).
I prefer not to receive HTML email. However I do receive it because
many people in the world use and send it. This is a fact of life. If
I receive a HTML email, I want to be able to read it in my choice of
email client. By choice I will always view the text portion of a MIME
multipart/alternate email in preference to the HTML version. If there
is no alternate part of the email, I want to either have the email
stripped of HTML tag (an alternate part generated for me), or
sometimes to view the actual HTML email. It is my choice to view it
(I want that choice).
As to your points...
* Accessibility
MIME multipart/alternate. Always send a text version as well with any
HTML version that is sent, if the text portion is sent as the first
part of the MIME email, then even readers that don't understand MIME
will still show a text email first.
* Privacy/security
Whatever mail agent I use I expect it to strip HTML email of security
problems (a reason I do not use MSOE for email). eg remove/disable all
scripts, tag events, offsite images, cookies, etc. A large number of
email clients can do this already. If there are situations where the
email is not viewable after being processed, then just inform the
user.
* Compatibility
Follow the standards and there are no hassles. The standards allow
for HTML email. Just add the text version as well.
People want to be able to send HTML email. These people are your
customers. If there is a big enough demand for a feature in a product,
you should provide it if you want to (a) keep selling the product, (b)
compete with your competitors, and (c) avoid losing customers who get
frustrated from not being listened to.
If you aren't intending on creating a fully featured email client,
which in the current world includes the ability to AT LEAST view
(safely - see above) HTML email, why create one at all? If a jobs
worth doing, it's worth doing well.
I would find it quite humorous to see Opera, a web browser company,
create an email program which cannot even display HTML email.... I
would probably also not be a user of such an email client.
Brodie.
Rob Pitkin
wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>> I would appreciate it, if there would be future plans to let Opera's
>> Mailclient send HTML-Mails. I promise that I will only use it if
>> necessary... :))
>
>There are no plans at the moment, and I will fight to keep it so :)
>
Good onya Haavard.
freexone
&
Remember: Silly is a state of Mind,
Stupid is a way of Life!
--Dave Butler
Rob Pitkin
wrote:
>On 1 Apr 2002 17:30:48 GMT, frod...@opera.com wrote:
> Could you possibly post your posts in plaintext? My newsreader
>doesn't support HTML, so I can't read what you wrote. Thanks. :P
>--
>Tim Altman
>
-
Rob Pitkin
*
Brixomatic
[HTML in Mails]
Just attach a Zip of your HTML file to the mail if you _want_ to send
HTML.. everything else is bloat.
I know people out there who include a backgroundpicture in every mail, so
you get it again again and again at least 7 times a week. Just imagine
everyone would do that. I'm getting about 100-200 Mails a week. NO
THANKS!
Greets,
-Wanja-
Brixomatic
15?Q?Jernej=20Simon=E8i=E8?= says...
> So far, I only had to send HTML once: I had to show a computer
> illiterate friend step-by-step how to attach a file in Outlook Express
"Oh Beth.. If I were you, the next time your daddy says his computer
isn't working. Tell him to give it to you to play with and send him out
to buy an iMac. It is a computer especially built for idio.. for mommys
and daddys."
[Wes Borg "the Internet Helpdesk"]
Greets,
-Wanja-
Brixomatic
> I do not think it is worth of braking some progress by one's life... :))
>
> Let's wait two or three years and no one will discuss any more on
> HTML-Mail. One uses it as one ueses cellular phones.
Just wait until people start sending HTML Mails to your cellular phone..
I bet you will be pissed off when your next phonebill comes, because your
phonecompany has chosen to bill per kilobyte.
Greets,
-Wanja-
Ralf Kammerer
Newsbeitrag news:1ed8a829d7cf8641%d...@isg.si...
> On 01. 04. 02 12:51:21, Some people call me... Tim wrote:
>
> > Rarely do I found boldface, underlined, or italic text within
> > literary works. Surely if a book doesn't need these extra means of
> > emphasis, then e-mail can do without it too?
>
> You can use *bold*, /italic/ and _underline_ with text, too :)
>
> (Oh, and some books have some text in italics)
*I* /don't/ _think_ ~this~ #looks# &very& ?nice?
http://www.geocities.com/ralfi77de/
http://home.arcor.de/ralfkammerer/fh-aalen/
Ralf Kammerer
> "Ralf Kammerer" wrote:
>
> > [Please give us the possibility of HTML-Mail]
>
> Why do you need it? Why not:
>
> - Put the emphasis on the contents, rather than the formatting?
> - Send a link to a web page containing the HTML?
Wait, I want to send an email.
> - Send a HTML file as an attachment?
Why not display the mail at once? The attached file already is
downloaded by the receiver, when he/she decided to receive that mail..
> > If you only send mails with tow lines, there is no possibility of a
> > HTML-Mail. But if you send much bigger Mails, sometimes it would be
> > great to have HTML-possibilities.
>
> Why?
- love letters to your girl => don't forget the image of a red heart :)
- advertisement
- long, ugly links that would be wrapped
- long letters where one would format signal words
- email-application
- ....
=> There are a lot of useful functions. It's the same step made by WWW
and HTML in Browsers. But I am aware, that one should use it tasteful -
like salt for eating. But would you renounce salt?
> > And as I have said just one posting before: Don't apparaise a
> > possibility as not useful, because YOU don't like it or cannot find
a
> > useful function.
>
> I again bring up this URL:
>
> http://www.opera.com/press/manifesto.html
I don't want to read it. It is HTML. I only read and load plaintext :)
I have read the formatted sentences and this is the fact I would like to
see HTML-Mail possibilites.
> Should Opera move away from its foundation? From what Opera is about?
I think: Opera sould always do the best for its customers because
customers use and pay for it.
> I have explained what the issues are when sending HTML mail, and will
> not repeat them here. See other posts in this thread.
I read it, but as a browser uses all these features, I cannot see a real
poiint why email should not have the same possibilities?
And as a producer of mail I want to decide what the mail should look
like best to reach my aim. And I feel disadvantaged if Opera's
mailclient displays ugly OE-HTML-Mails and I cannot produce any
HTML-Mail.
> Still, it will not be possible to do with Opera's e-mail client.
> Microsoft found it feasible to create their own standards, and went
> with it even when they dominated the browser market. Look what that
> lead to.
Microsoft has the power and the money to create and force standards.
Opera and Netscape will not yet have the power to alter it. It is so and
you should make the best of it and not fight against it. Because
Microsoft will not care.
I really like Opera and use it for 95% of browsing and mailing. I only
use OE for posting news - hope the new newsclient of Opera is great. But
don't you think you should give the customers the free choice beetween
plaintext-mail and HTML-Mail? I am 24 and know what I do if I want to
use HTML-Mail or plaintext-mail. If Opera enforces their opinion over
millions of users, I do not think, the users will like it. And in the
end, Opera will ever compared to IE & OE or netscape and then only
fetaures count. HTML-Mail will be one fetaure - if you personally like
it or not.
Let the users decide!
Ralf Kammerer
> >
> [snip]
> >
> >> I would appreciate it, if there would be future plans to let
Opera's
> >> Mailclient send HTML-Mails. I promise that I will only use it if
> >> necessary... :))
> >
> >There are no plans at the moment, and I will fight to keep it so :)
> >
> Yay!!!!!!! and so say all of us.
> Good onya Haavard.
Dave Butler, do not only write "Yay" but do explain your opinion. A yes
man person does not give us any good hints.So what do you want to say?
Jernej Simončič
> "Oh Beth.. If I were you, the next time your daddy says his computer
> isn't working. Tell him to give it to you to play with and send him out
> to buy an iMac. It is a computer especially built for idio.. for mommys
> and daddys.
The problem is, that iMacs (actually all Macs) are *really* rare here,
and most of the programs are only developed for Windows... So it
wouldn't really help...
Jernej Simončič
> I know people out there who include a backgroundpicture in every mail, so
> you get it again again and again at least 7 times a week. Just imagine
> everyone would do that. I'm getting about 100-200 Mails a week. NO
100-200 mails a week? That's my daily amount of mail... Then 3 people
kindly ask somebody who keeps sending HTML mails with 7 kB BG image
(which is of course, inflated by Base64) on the Gimp-Win mailing list to
stop doing it, and he replies how rude we are, and that he's
unsubscribing because of that... (not that we missed him)
Jernej Simončič
> *I* /don't/ _think_ ~this~ #looks# &very& ?nice?
No, that did *not* look nice. Anyway, what do ~, #, & and ? mean as
emphasis?
Coises
>OK. I have now given it a try, and I still don't like it.
>Do you think customers will like it? Did you like it?
I think this has now reached breathtakingly moronic proportions.
1. Did you consider the possibility that someone might have been reading
news in Opera, and might also have had other work open in Opera that they
would not be happy to lose?
No, I wasn't such a person; but what were you thinking? You intentionally
posted --- without warning --- a message expected to hang an application?
And Opera is now so stable, even in the event of a crash, that we're not
even worried anymore about such a forced stop possibly corrupting a
mailbox... bookmarks... etc? It would be nice to think everyone has
everything of any importance backed up at all times, but it isn't true.
(Granted, reading news in Opera is probably a sign of some serious mental
impairment; but that doesn't mean such users should be further victimized.)
2. I'm not sure you proved much about HTML e-mail, but you certainly
demonstrated that Opera has a significant deficiency in script handling.
It clearly should be possible to escape from such a loop without calling up
the Task Manager and forcing the application to end: but if there was a way
to accomplish that, I didn't see it. A script shouldn't be able to stop me
from interacting with the host application; at minimum, I should be able
to turn off scripting and/or close the window to which the script adheres.
--
Peace, Ra...@Coises.com
Why does Coises have a web site? Why do peanuts come with directions?
Pages at http://www.coises.com/ were updated 5 March 2002.
Ralf Kammerer
There are people, including Opera developers, who have a big problem on
HTML-Mail mainly because of principles.
There are other peoples, me included, that would like to see a HTML-Mail
feature. Why not use bold, lists, images in some mails?
This could be
- love letters to your girl => don't forget the image of a red heart :)
- advertisement
- long, ugly links could be hidden and made better readable
- long mails where one could format signal words, headlines
- one could use sepcial symbols like Euro € or ä and so on,
and everywhere it will be displayed correct.
- email-application
- As I have recognized, Women like to use HTML-Mail. Maybe this is a
difference between men and women. But women like to send coloured fonts,
formatted fonts and a background colour.
- Children would use HTML-Mail.
- ...
Opera users are not only masculine software developers, who only like
*plaintext* and hate every image, font format in an email!!!!!!!!!
If Opera would provide the possibility to send HTML-Mail this does not
mean that every mail is send as HTML. But one has the possibility to do
so, if one really wants to do so.
I would suggest to let Opera users the free choice. Or make an opinion
poll?
I don't like opinion's that are unbreakable strong whatever other
persons say. Better discuss disadvantages and advantages and make the
best out of it. I think HTML-Mail has its justification.
E.g. imagine this daily mail correctly displayed in Opera'a mailclient
as plaimntext. Would you like it any more?
=> http://home.arcor.de/ralfkammerer/html-mail-example.gif [50kb]
Jernej Simonèiè
>- love letters to your girl => don't forget the image of a red heart :)
You can draw the hart with ASCII art. It won't be red, but it will be
something special, different than any "normal" image you would send.
>- advertisement
...go straight in trash here. Anyway, if you'd like to create a
good-looking AD, you'll probably find even specialized HTML editors too
limited to be useful. You couldn't gain anything with a HTML mail editor
built-in Opera.
>- long, ugly links could be hidden and made better readable
That's a good point. But, usually any long link can be made shorter
(just look at Google groups), and good mail clients don't wrap links.
>- long mails where one could format signal words, headlines
Well, _signal words_ can be marked other ways, and titles can be
recognized as such by leaving a line or two empty above and below.
>- one could use sepcial symbols like Euro € or ä and so on,
> and everywhere it will be displayed correct.
€uro and different ümläuts will be displayed just as good in plain text
e-mails if the charset is set properly. If the charset is wrong, HTML
won't help you here.
>- email-application
What's that?
>- As I have recognized, Women like to use HTML-Mail. Maybe this is a
> difference between men and women. But women like to send coloured fonts,
> formatted fonts and a background colour.
Not the women I know (and they aren't techies).
>- Children would use HTML-Mail.
Children usually don't use Opera.
> If Opera would provide the possibility to send HTML-Mail this does not
> mean that every mail is send as HTML. But one has the possibility to do
> so, if one really wants to do so.
Opera is mainly a browser. Most of the resources go into development of
the core - the HTML rendering engine. If the rendering (viewing) engine
takes som much time, imagine how long would it take that they made a
HTML editor (which is necessary for HTML e-mails).
Jernej Simonèiè
> E.g. imagine this daily mail correctly displayed in Opera'a mailclient
> as plaimntext. Would you like it any more?
You gave a bad example. That e-mail is an ideal WWW page, but not a mail
message. It even contains web form. The table could have easily been
done in text, and "Rainy" would have the same meaning to me as the cloud
with a raindrop.
Oh, there is another reason why I prefer plain text e-mails to HTML that
I forgot to mention: I like to view e-mail with monospaced Lucida
Console font, at 10 points, black on light-brown background. HTML
e-mails usually arrive with Arial at 9 points (often in italic,
especially with replies), black on white background (or even worse -
blue, pink or red on gray - or texture), which looks ugly IMHO.
Haavard K. Moen
<RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
> To sum this controverse discussion up:
<snip>
You have basically summed up what you perceive to be advantages, but
haven't taken the disadvantages into account.
The arguments against HTML mail are far from purely ideological,
although you have to see the combination between all the contributing
factors. Compatibility, moving power from the recipient/viewer to the
sender, etc. Even seemingly unimportant issues such as size (HTML+pure
text means more than twice the size) play in.
Frode Gill
news:d23jauojoviuk5bbg...@4ax.com:
> [1 Apr 2002 17:30:48 GMT] frod...@opera.com:
>>OK. I have now given it a try, and I still don't like it.
>>Do you think customers will like it? Did you like it?
>
> I think this has now reached breathtakingly moronic proportions.
OK. It was not a well though action of mine. I cannot guarantee not to post
something that can cause problems in the future, but I promise to use the
subject to warn about potential harmful messages. Sorry...
--
Frode Gill
Jarek Piórkowski
> Let the users decide!
That's it - why do you want to force them into displaying message the
way you want? This is what HTML mail is about.
I can use Comic Sans MS font to read my e-mails and since I've made
this decision, I don't want noone changing it just because they feel
it'll be better for me/them/whoever.
--
:: Greetings,
:: Jarek Piórkowski
:: [decode email address with ROT-13 or jarek_piorkowski on yahoo.com]
Ralf Kammerer
Hello! Maybe I should ask this feature for Opera 8. Time seems not ready
for it at Opera's. Maybe, as progress never stands still, I will then
ask for a "Multimedia-adapted-Version" of M-HTML. Let's see what clever
persons develop for us.
Forever and ever I anyhow do not want to write with symbols like *, _ or
/ to emphasize some words, while others do mock me that I am of Stone
Age time when using such symbols any more. :)
Let's wait what time brings us... and I will ask for Opera 8 again... :)
Jarek Piórkowski
> Forever and ever I anyhow do not want to write with symbols like
> *, _ or / to emphasize some words, while others do mock me that I
> am of Stone Age time when using such symbols any more. :)
Forever and ever some people will want to view *their* e-mails as
*they* like, not how sender does.
Turtle
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
| On 1 Apr 2002 17:30:48 GMT, frod...@opera.com wrote:
|
| Could you possibly post your posts in plaintext? My newsreader
| doesn't support HTML, so I can't read what you wrote. Thanks. :P
No, but it shows as an attachement and clicking it
may be very hazardous. ;)
=ybegin line=4 size=42 name=I_Love_Agent.exe
=yend size=42 crc32=e2444c9a
Richard Grevers
> "Haavard K. Moen" wrote:
> > "Ralf Kammerer" wrote:
> >
> > > [Please give us the possibility of HTML-Mail]
> >
> > Why do you need it? Why not:
> >
> > - Put the emphasis on the contents, rather than the formatting?
> But the emphasis could be better when using both!
>
> > - Send a link to a web page containing the HTML?
> Wait, I want to send an email.
>
> > - Send a HTML file as an attachment?
> Why not display the mail at once? The attached file already is
> downloaded by the receiver, when he/she decided to receive that mail..
I could actually read it if it is an attachment. My mail client (which is
irreplacable in terms of some of its security features) renders many HTML
emails totally unreadable.
Rob Pitkin
>"Rob Pitkin" <rpi...@new-no-POP-eramail.con> wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >> I would appreciate it, if there would be future plans to let
>Opera's
>> >> Mailclient send HTML-Mails. I promise that I will only use it if
>> >> necessary... :))
>> >
>> >There are no plans at the moment, and I will fight to keep it so :)
>> >
>> Yay!!!!!!! and so say all of us.
>> Good onya Haavard.
>
>Dave Butler, do not only write "Yay" but do explain your opinion. A yes
>man person does not give us any good hints.So what do you want to say?
>
>--
>RalfKa...@gmx.de
>
Sorry Ralf, I'm Rob, nice to have you on board; the message is a bit of irony
for Haavard and the rest of the Opera community.
But yes, I am in full agreement with him on this issue,
and let no-one doubt my dedication to Opera as possibly the best browser
on the planet,. . . 'fierce' is a word that comes readily to mind!
-
Rob Pitkin
*
Rob Pitkin
<wnerx_cv...@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>Pewnego pięknego dnia, Ralf Kammerer wyklawiaturzył:
>
>> Let the users decide!
>
>That's it - why do you want to force them into displaying message the
>way you want? This is what HTML mail is about.
>
Yep, exactly!
>
>I can use Comic Sans MS font to read my e-mails
>
Yeah, me too; it's great for a giggle some times,
especially if it's a silly reply from some-one. ;-)
I get lots of them, especially at the moment.
>
[snip]
>
>:: Greetings,
>:: Jarek Piórkowski
>
CU
Rob Pitkin
>
[SNIP]
>
>E.g. imagine this daily mail correctly displayed in Opera'a mailclient
>as plaimntext. Would you like it any more?
>
>=> http://home.arcor.de/ralfkammerer/html-mail-example.gif [50kb]
>
>--
>RalfKa...@gmx.de
>
I believe, Opera already displays HTML mail?
And if I preferred plain/text e-mail, I would either trash it,
or if important send a message asking for a plain text copy.
Writing well, is hard enough with-out covering your inadequate
abilities with HTML pretties and other garbage.
Toby A Inkster
> Pewnego pięknego dnia, Ralf Kammerer wyklawiaturzył:
>
>> Forever and ever I anyhow do not want to write with symbols like *, _
>> or / to emphasize some words, while others do mock me that I am of
>> Stone Age time when using such symbols any more. :)
>
> Forever and ever some people will want to view *their* e-mails as *they*
> like, not how sender does.
That is precisely what HTML is designed for, remember? HTML describes
content -- not style. If you want to *display* the HTML using a user
style sheet or something, who's stopping you?
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 16 days, 17:51
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
In a Rhodes tailor shop: Order your summers suit. Because is big rush
we will execute customers in strict rotation.
Toby A Inkster
> That's it - why do you want to force them into displaying message the
> way you want? This is what HTML mail is about.
No -- HTML is about conveying content better. How the HTML is rendered at
the other end is the responsibility of the sender. If the HTML displaying
component of their mail client is sufficiently advanced (as I'm sure
Opera's will be), they'll be able to apply their own style sheet to the
email and view it how they want.
HTML is *more* flexible than text -- it's not rigid at all (Although some
web "designers" would have us believe otherwise)
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 16 days, 18:50
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
In a Copenhagen airline ticket office: We take your bags and send them
in all directions.
Johan H. Borg
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:11:04 +0100, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> > That's it - why do you want to force them into displaying message the
> > way you want? This is what HTML mail is about.
>
> No -- HTML is about conveying content better. How the HTML is rendered at
> the other end is the responsibility of the sender. If the HTML displaying
> component of their mail client is sufficiently advanced (as I'm sure
> Opera's will be), they'll be able to apply their own style sheet to the
> email and view it how they want.
>
> HTML is *more* flexible than text -- it's not rigid at all (Although some
> web "designers" would have us believe otherwise)
I agree. HTML can actually be a lot better than plain text for accessibility,
since the markup is able to better define things like lists or point out if
a text is meant to be a header. *COOL* isn't easy to render for a screen
reader, while <em>Cool</em> has a well-defined meaning.
The problem with HTML in most e-mailers today is that it favors form, not
content. It's easy to change color to pink and font to Comic, but that
doesn't add any useful information. Opera 7 may not compose HTML e-mails,
but that doesn't mean HTML is all wrong (after all, Opera is a browser..).
--
Johan Borg
Software Developer
Opera Software - http://www.opera.com
Wojciech E.
Johan H. Borg napisa³(a) w wiadomoœci: <1103_10...@news.opera.no>...
>On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 09:26:25 +0100, Toby A Inkster <UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com>
wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:11:04 +0100, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>>
>> > That's it - why do you want to force them into displaying message the
>> > way you want? This is what HTML mail is about.
>>
>> No -- HTML is about conveying content better. How the HTML is rendered at
>> the other end is the responsibility of the sender. If the HTML displaying
>> component of their mail client is sufficiently advanced (as I'm sure
>> Opera's will be), they'll be able to apply their own style sheet to the
>> email and view it how they want.
>>
>> HTML is *more* flexible than text -- it's not rigid at all (Although some
>> web "designers" would have us believe otherwise)
>
>I agree. HTML can actually be a lot better than plain text for accessibility,
>since the markup is able to better define things like lists or point out if
>a text is meant to be a header. *COOL* isn't easy to render for a screen
>reader, while <em>Cool</em> has a well-defined meaning.
>
>The problem with HTML in most e-mailers today is that it favors form, not
>content. It's easy to change color to pink and font to Comic, but that
Guys... please.... stop this crap....
If we would think this way, we would stop on the Gopher browser till today.
Bolding, underlying, colours, font sizes - it all makes sense. It makes it EASIER and
NICER to read the content.
I know that for us, technical people the most important thing is content, not the form.
But most of users, including me, appreciate reading text on a HTML page with a nice
background, colours and stylings.
And I do not see any difference here between reading web page and reading an email or a
news article.
The reason I post news messages in clear text is that I'm a peaceloving creature and I
don't want to make furious anyone who hates HTML postings. The other reason is that it
significantly reduces the size of a message which is also important argument to do it.
But:
- in daily e-mail exchange with friends and customers, an HTML mails are very useful to
encourage reader to read the whole email and show we are professionals
- on newsgroups - even if I don't post HTML postings, I must be able to read if someone
does post them in this form.
I don't see much problems here anyway as Opera engine for displaying web pages may be
used, isn't it?
So... what is the big discussion all about??
Regards
Wojciech E.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Voytec - the fighter against powers of darkness
micr...@is.lame.co
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Ad
"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Haavard K. Moen
> > That's it - why do you want to force them into displaying message the
> > way you want? This is what HTML mail is about.
>
> No -- HTML is about conveying content better. How the HTML is rendered at
> the other end is the responsibility of the sender. If the HTML displaying
> component of their mail client is sufficiently advanced (as I'm sure
> Opera's will be), they'll be able to apply their own style sheet to the
> email and view it how they want.
You are basically assuming that the recipient will want the mail the
way you sent it, and you assume that the e-mail client is not only
capable of displaying HTML mail, but that it also works as a web
browser and allows you to apply different style sheets to mail.
But e-mail is not the web. An e-mail client is supposed to display
e-mail. It should not have to be a web browser to handle mail. If
Opera is capable of handling HTML mail properly because it is a web
browser, you are doing exactly the same as people who send me a
MS-Word document and expect me to be able to open it and view it the
way they intended it to be viewed.
> HTML is *more* flexible than text -- it's not rigid at all (Although some
> web "designers" would have us believe otherwise)
HTML is not flexible if the recipient is forced to view a mail in a
certain way. It might make it flexible for the sender, but the
recipient is basically forced to accept what he or she receives - much
like the web can be sometimes. You cannot assume that the e-mail
client has web browser features.
Haavard K. Moen
wrote:
> Opera 7 may not compose HTML e-mails, but that doesn't mean HTML is all wrong
> (after all, Opera is a browser..).
Assuming that the person you are sending mail to has an e-mail client
with web browser features is, however, wrong. Much like sending
MS-Word documents to just anyone because you expect that everyone has
MS-Word.
Jernej Simončič
> - on newsgroups - even if I don't post HTML postings, I must be able to read if someone
> does post them in this form.
Do you know which newsreaders are the most popular? Agent, Gravity,
XNews. Agent and Gravity can't show HTML posts (I don't know about
XNews, but I think it doesn't handle HTML mails either). And, you
probably seen this quote before:
,-----
| "The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article,then
| hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog
| and smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just
| extremism." - Paul Tomblin in <mid:74rv2a$uqm$1...@canoe.xcski.com>
'-----
My newsreader (closed beta, don't ask for it) has a button to remove
HTML tags from the message. But that's all.
Jernej Simonèiè
> HTML is *more* flexible than text -- it's not rigid at all (Although some
> web "designers" would have us believe otherwise)
Can you please tell me, how can I change the style sheet in The Bat (or
any other mailer that supports HTML e-mails except Opera)?
Rob Pitkin
wrote:
More mis-informed garbage.
I would just *insist* on repeating:
>Writing well, is hard enough with-out covering
Smule
news:a8f6e6$rgm$1...@mail.opera.no:
> Guys... please.... stop this crap....
<..>
To sum up your post, everyone who disagrees with you about HTML e-mail
should stop it because you are right, and everyone should understand
this and quit posting?
<..>
> So... what is the big discussion all about??
You can't even handle people with different opinions? You are telling
people to stop this because someone has the nerve to disagree with
you?
Lord...
Ralf Kammerer
It was so easy: I made a HTML-Mail in my editor and put it in outbox.
With an editor I opened outbos.mbs and replaced "Content-Type:
text/plain" with "Content-Type: text/html". That was all and now it's a
HTML-Mail.
Changing one word was all???
Possibly a feature to be implemented in Opera in 10 sesconds???
Toby A Inkster
That's why you should follow my suggestion -- let them find a hidden
setting to change the MIME type to "text/html" and then write the HTML
source directly into the composition window rather than use a WYSIWYG
editor.
That way people will rarely bother using HTML, and when they do it will
be easy to read (HTML written by hand is generally much easier to read
than machine-generated stuff).
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 17 days, 7:08
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
Outside a Paris dress shop: Dresses for street walking.
Toby A Inkster
> By sending someone
> HTML e-mail you are imposing your own style on them.
No -- they're imposing that style on themselves. If they don't like that
style, they can choose a mail client that:
* allows them to use their own style sheet for mail (as I hope the
forthcoming Opera client does);
* converts HTML to plain text on the fly (as plenty of mailers do --
PINE and Sylpheed for instance); or
* just supports some unannoying subset of HTML (<b>, <i>, <u>, <p> and
<a> for example).
In fact, the only mailers (that I can think of) that *don't* let you do
one of these things are Outlook, Moz/Netscape and AOL -- and they all
allow their users to send HTML. In fact, AOL doesn't currently allow
their users to send plain text!
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 17 days, 7:15
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
In an Austrian hotel catering to skiers: Not to perambulate the
corridors in the hours of repose in the boots of ascension.
Samuli Lintula
news:a8fq4q$rtblf$1...@ID-66426.news.dfncis.de:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:37:37 +0100, Smule wrote:
>
>> By sending someone
>> HTML e-mail you are imposing your own style on them.
>
> No -- they're imposing that style on themselves. If they don't
> like that style, they can choose a mail client that:
One of the central ideas of accessibility is that you can choose
any (standards conforming) mail or web client and do your
businesses with that.
--
Samuli Lintula @ http://www.samulilintula.net/
Department of Biochemistry @ University of Turku
1. Varavaltuutettu (vihr.) @ Turku
http://www.samulilintula.net/netti/operavukk.php
Jernej Simonèiè
> In fact, the only mailers (that I can think of) that *don't* let you do
> one of these things are Outlook, Moz/Netscape and AOL -- and they all
> allow their users to send HTML. In fact, AOL doesn't currently allow
> their users to send plain text!
Add The Bat to that list. It doesn't support creating of HTML (yet; it's
planned for 2.0), but it displays the HTML. I also doubt that Becky and
PocoMail support user stylesheets. What about Eudora?
Jonny Axelsson
> Since when did e-mail clients become full-featured web browsers? Do
> you know of a single e-mail client which can apply a user style sheet
> to incoming e-mail? No?
This is not intended as a vote of support to either faction (I loathe
text/plain, but text/html is clearly not working either), but I can easily
name one: Opera/Win 4.0 - 5.02 (email.css), Opera/Win 5.10 - 6.02
(mime.css).
Jonny Axelsson
Documentation,
Opera software
Jonny Axelsson
wrote:
> Hello !
>
> It was so easy: I made a HTML-Mail in my editor and put it in outbox.
> With an editor I opened outbos.mbs and replaced "Content-Type:
> text/plain" with "Content-Type: text/html". That was all and now it's a
> HTML-Mail.
>
> Changing one word was all???
> Possibly a feature to be implemented in Opera in 10 sesconds???
Handcoding HTML you mean? Hmm, gave me an idea for a cute but useless
feature. The most annoying e-spam isn't using HTML but MHTML (using
multipart/mixed to incorporate images and other external files in the
message). So if you write your full MIME body (boundaries, cids and all),
there could be a button in Opera to turn the media type from text/plain to
multipart/mixed...
Smule
>> By sending someone HTML e-mail you are imposing your own style on
>> them.
>
> No -- they're imposing that style on themselves. If they don't
> like that style, they can choose a mail client that:
>
> * allows them to use their own style sheet for mail (as I hope
> the
> forthcoming Opera client does);
> * converts HTML to plain text on the fly (as plenty of mailers do
> --
> PINE and Sylpheed for instance); or
> * just supports some unannoying subset of HTML (<b>, <i>, <u>,
> <p> and
> <a> for example).
"This mail was optimized for HTML Mail Reader 4.0 or newer. You are
using an unsupported e-mail client. Please upgrade."
Have we heard something similar before?
So you basically tell people that in order to receive mail from you,
they must use a program which does what you need it to do? Wow.
> In fact, the only mailers (that I can think of) that *don't* let
> you do one of these things are Outlook, Moz/Netscape and AOL --
> and they all allow their users to send HTML. In fact, AOL doesn't
> currently allow their users to send plain text!
Look, you can't assume that the recipient can read HTML mail. Even
if it is easy to read it as text/plain, the mail becomes more than
twice the size just because of the HTML!
Smule
news:1103_10...@news.opera.no:
Do you expect me to exit Opera and edit one of these style sheets
every time you send me HTML e-mail so I can view the mail the way I
want, rather than the way you have chosen for me?
Opera is a web browser, and it supports user style sheets. How many
e-mail clients are really web browsers? Do all e-mail clients have
to add a web browser to view mail?
Perhaps this could be a business opportunity for Opera. Create a
HTML viewer engine and sell it to everyone creating e-mail clients
so they, too, can support user CSS and whatnot. It's OK, you can use
that idea for free. Consider it a display of goodwill, in the hope
that we will never see HTML e-mail sent using Opera.
I'll take text/plain over text/html any day. It works and it is
compatible.
Ken Knox (N1JRO)
<UseTheAddr...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:37:37 +0100, Smule wrote:
>
>> By sending someone
>> HTML e-mail you are imposing your own style on them.
>
>No -- they're imposing that style on themselves. If they don't like that
>style, they can choose a mail client that:
>
> * allows them to use their own style sheet for mail (as I hope the
> forthcoming Opera client does);
> * converts HTML to plain text on the fly (as plenty of mailers do --
> PINE and Sylpheed for instance); or
> * just supports some unannoying subset of HTML (<b>, <i>, <u>, <p> and
> <a> for example).
>
>In fact, the only mailers (that I can think of) that *don't* let you do
>one of these things are Outlook, Moz/Netscape and AOL -- and they all
>allow their users to send HTML. In fact, AOL doesn't currently allow
>their users to send plain text!
>
>--
Well, Toby, I respect your feelings on this, but as my kids have found
out...any HTML emails that arrive here don't even get read. They learnmed
quick enough! <g>
Ken
--
- O6.02.1066, Win32 - IDing as Opera unless noted!
- WebWasher 3.0, Sun Java JRE 1.3.1, Real 8 Basic, Adobe Acrobat 4.0, & QuickTime 4.1.2 plugins.
- AMD K6-266 - W95b - Mirage Illusionist 3D Video (32M) - 192M SDRAM
- Running thru local 10 Base-T server network (P133, USR 56k Modem)
Christoph Päper
>
> If they don't like that style, they can choose a mail client that:
>
> * allows them to use their own style sheet for mail (as I hope the
> forthcoming Opera client does);
I thought that's what styles/mime.css is already for. I'm not using
Opera's email client at all.
> * just supports some unannoying subset of HTML (<b>, <i>, <u>, <p> and
> <a> for example).
b, i, u are the most annoying HTML elements around, although only one
(u) is deprecated. Nevertheless these can already be emulated with *b*,
/i/ and _u_, as well as normal line break instead of p and putting the
link between < and >.
You could make a XML-DTD for HTML-Mail (MML - Mail Markup Language),
that only includes a subset of XHTML, then RFC it, then implement it,
then hope others implement it too.
I'm thinking of the following elements: blockquote, q, cite, p, a,
code, one heading element: h1, ol + li, strong, em, pre and address for
the sig. But definetly none of those: applet, embed, script, img,
object, param, iframe, frame, frameset, noframes, script, noscript,
form, input, div, span. Leaving out img and object, which is *really*
important, would make it much less useful for many potential users.
I think a button in Opera's email client that would switch sendinf the
mail as text/html (or application/xhtml+xml), but not providing any
'WYSIWYG' HTML-element creating buttons would be the most harmless
option, if there had to be any. Optionally the forbidden elements
listet above being removed by Opera before sending.
Christoph, *not* supporting HTML mail
Jonny Axelsson
> Jonny Axelsson <j...@opera.no> wrote in
> news:1103_10...@news.opera.no:
> Do you expect me to exit Opera and edit one of these style sheets
> every time you send me HTML e-mail so I can view the mail the way I
> want, rather than the way you have chosen for me?
No, but here is where the "C" in CSS comes in, in particular the for the
user/receipient tremendously useful CSS2 "inherit" property value.
Unfortunately Opera still has far too many inherit bugs.
In effect inherit could just as well be called "ignore". With "inherit!
important" *you* have all the power. E.g.
/* With this in your stylesheet, all font tags will be ignored */
font {
font-family: inherit!important;
font-size: inherit!important;
color: inherit!important;
}
/* Here goes the blink tag, not that it is supported in Opera anyway */
blink {text-decoration: inherit!important;}
/* No graphics or Java or plug-ins */
img, object, embed {display: none!important;}
/* No background image */
* {background-image: none!important;}
> Opera is a web browser, and it supports user style sheets. How many
> e-mail clients are really web browsers? Do all e-mail clients have
> to add a web browser to view mail?
No, but as a sender you should have text/plain as a fallback (using
multipart/alternative where one alternative is text/plain). You can send
other media types too. Actually application/postscript is one of the few
media types that are predefined in MIME, so if it makes you happy, you can
start sending Postscript emails.
> I'll take text/plain over text/html any day. It works and it is
> compatible.
For compatibility issues with text/plain, see RFC 2646,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2646.txt>. And if you want to use the message
body in production later, "works" is not the word that springs to mind.
Jonny Axelsson
wrote:
> > * just supports some unannoying subset of HTML (<b>, <i>, <u>, <p> and
> > <a> for example).
>
> b, i, u are the most annoying HTML elements around, although only one
Italic and bold makes a lot of sense if you have a very small markup
vocabulary and interoperability with other formats is a goal, though I would
personally have dropped both bold and underline.
> Nevertheless these can already be emulated with *b*, /i/ and _u_
Which is an argument *for* the three elements above. "Inband" formatting is
the worst of all worlds. Markup should be unambigous (The character "<" must
be escaped in XML text nodes as "<" in text/enriched as "<<", neatly
delimiting the text from the markup). Using */_ as markup is not
particularily readable, and cannot programmatically be converted into
"real" markup.
> strong
You don't want bold, but want strong? This is inconsistent. (No, even though
all the HTML specifications up till now have implied otherwise, strong is
not a semantic or even useful element).
For what it's worth, my top three markup elements in an email setting would
have been quote, headline and em (arguably also sig).
Wojciech E.
>
>
>> If we would think this way, we would stop on the Gopher browser till today.
>
>stop repeating it over and over. Being against HTML mail has got
>nothing to do with living in the past. Some actually feel that HTML
>mail is a step backwards, because it takes control from the reader and
>gives it to the sender. Opera already has features to give the person
>who browses web pages more flexibility. Why should Opera contribute to
>taking away this flexibility for the *reader* in e-mail?
[snip snip snip]
Ok. I admit I was too reckless saying all those rough words.
I agree HTML can make more mess than good (but I still quote it can be very usefull) and
that some (many?) users do not have an e-mail clients which can read HTML mails (it's a
fact and we can't do anything about it. This is how it is gonna be.... how long? maybe
forever...)
I also admit to be surprised by the quote that someone may take HTML emails as being
unprofessional.
However, I'm terrified that in 2002 and God-only-knows-how-long, if not forever, the only
way to keep a full compatibility between various users is to use clear text.
But the main argument for implementing HTML support in mail client remains intact: If I
get a message coded in HTML, I'd lik to read it somehow. So I'd better can see it in this
HTML display, than trying to catch the text from between a bunch of HTML tags.
In order to reduce possible mess, the limitations may be restricted to maximum - like no
popup windows and so on (in one of the latest postings there are many cool features listed
which can be added to give back control from browser to user)
An alterternative / additional option may be the built-in parser for HTML code which will
catch the text from the HTML posting and display it as clear text, if someone prefers it
this way.
Last thing - I do not defend HTML. It's not perfect, but do we have any choice,
alternative, except clear text? I guess not, so far. I will be happy to hear about any
unification or a new standard, designed specially for e-mails (to improve their look),
which everyone will start using suddenly all around the world. But I doubt it may ever
happen.... :(
Just a quick thought: Maybe a kind of css - style sheets can be adapted for formating the
look of emails in some feature...
Anyway, I think there is very little hope for introduction of new, common standard of
e-mail coding 'cause HTML works just fine for those who use it. They don't care that such
message is bigger, or could possibly make mess. It's just pretty to look at (at least in
their opiniion). Therefore there's probably a very low interest for a new standard.
(except users posting to this group of course ;) )
So my conclusion - I'm afraid we'll have to get adapted to it. Sooner or later.
Let everyone decide on his own how long does he like to delay the moment.
Best Regards
Wojciech E.
P.S. Personal English-English Dictionary:
not sure of the meaning of the word "quote". I use it not in the meaning of "citation" but
like... "I stay by the opinion"
Wojciech E.
>On 03. 04. 02 17:19:34, Wojciech E. wrote:
>
>> - on newsgroups - even if I don't post HTML postings, I must be able to read if someone
>> does post them in this form.
>
>Do you know which newsreaders are the most popular? Agent, Gravity,
>XNews. Agent and Gravity can't show HTML posts (I don't know about
>XNews, but I think it doesn't handle HTML mails either). And, you
>probably seen this quote before:
Is it for Linux or Windows?
I don't believe lame-users use clients which does not support HTML. Maybe by accident -
when they don't know what is HTML and that there are clients, which handle it. :))
>,-----
>| "The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article,then
>| hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog
>| and smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just
>| extremism." - Paul Tomblin in <mid:74rv2a$uqm$1...@canoe.xcski.com>
>'-----
yes. a nice one! I send in clear text so it's not dedicated to me :)
>My newsreader (closed beta, don't ask for it) has a button to remove
>HTML tags from the message. But that's all.
why may I not ask....? what is this one? :)
Best Regards
Wojciech E.
Wojciech E.
>On Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:19:34 +0200, "Wojciech E." <voy...@NOSPAM.komtech.com.pl>
>wrote:
>More mis-informed garbage.
>I would just *insist* on repeating:
>>Writing well, is hard enough with-out covering
>> "*your inadequate abilities*"
>>with HTML pretties and other garbage.
>"Say No More!"
Come on....
It happens at times, there's no doubt - covering lacks in content by pictures and colours.
But their is no relation between both - there can exist a message with both good content
and good look, can't it?
I admited I was not right at times in the original post you've replied for - two posts
ago - in reply to Haavard K. Moen.
You may read it if you like and treat it as repentance.
Best Regards
Wojciech E.
Wojciech E.
Smule napisał(a) w wiadomości: ...
Indeed I'm ashamed. I feel stupid.
I admited I was not right at times in the original post you've replied for - three posts
Wojciech E.
>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:06:11 +0200, "Ralf Kammerer" <RalfKa...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>[SNIP]
>>
>>E.g. imagine this daily mail correctly displayed in Opera'a mailclient
>>as plaimntext. Would you like it any more?
>>
>>=> http://home.arcor.de/ralfkammerer/html-mail-example.gif [50kb]
>>
>>--
>>RalfKa...@gmx.de
>>
>Something funny going on here ?
>I believe, Opera already displays HTML mail?
>And if I preferred plain/text e-mail, I would either trash it,
>or if important send a message asking for a plain text copy.
Do you imagine such situation? :
You receive mails from your clients (clients of your company or whatever). Let's say half
of around 30 e-mails you receive daily is in plain text and the other half is coded in
HTML.
From what you say, I assume, everytime you receive an HTML coded e-mail, you reply to your
customer: "please send it to me in plain text 'cause I can't read it".
Two remarks:
1. This would waste much time - both your's and your clients' time, every day!
2. Your clients may say: "what a hopeless amateur... he is not even clever enough to read
a simple e-mail in the way I send him. Will he be clever enough to do the work properly
for me then?"
(I guess the second point is especially actual in IT branch)
And tell me what for? What for to make so much inconvinience to both you and your client
and lower your reputation? In the name of what? In the name of The Idea of Clean, Plain
Text eMails Forever??
I'm afraid this would be a fanatism to strongly stay by plain text clients and push
everyone around to use plain text too.
Best Regards
Wojciech E.
Some people call me... Tim
<voy...@NOSPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
>Just a quick thought: Maybe a kind of css - style sheets can be adapted for formating the
>look of emails in some feature...
You mean like mime.css in your Opera\styles directory?
>So my conclusion - I'm afraid we'll have to get adapted to it [ed: HTML mail]. Sooner or later.
>Let everyone decide on his own how long does he like to delay the moment.
I--and I'm sure others will--disagree. The majority of HTML mail
/ news likely comes from Outlook, as it defaults to having HTML on.
Let's look at what's on the market and see how Opera might have come
to their decision.
News
----
We know of at least two popular news readers that have no plans
to support HTML in news, Opera and Agent
(http://www.forteinc.com/agent/roadmap.php). Xnews
(http://xnews.3dnews.net/) doesn't list support for it in the features
list, so I'm guessing they aren't touching it. Gravity
(http://www.microplanet.com/) has an HTML suppression tool (according
to http://cws.internet.com/reviews/news-gravity4.html), so it's
unlikely that it sends HTML news. Netscape 4.x and 6.x likely support
a full range of HTML options in e-mail messages. Now let's look at
HTML mail.
Mail
----
Eudora (4.3.2 anyway) sends and receives HTML mail. It will
render a limited amount of HTML mail using an internal renderer or can
do a lot more using IE's rendering engine. It can send limited styled
mail, with text formatted with bold, italic, and underline, along with
lists and text alignment.
I avoid Outlook like the plague, but I'd imagine that it can do
full blown HTML. Netscape 4.x uses an HTML editor interface to create
HTML e-mails, support roughly the same features as Eudora. It uses
the rendering engine to render HTML mails. Mozilla 0.9.9 (and
Netscape 6+) probably have about the same support as Netscape 4.x,
though both Mozilla's and Netscape's sites don't seem to want to tell
me what features the mail client included with the browser include.
Pegasus mail (http://www.pmail.com/overviews/ovw_winpmail.htm)
doesn't list support for HTML mail. The Bat!
(http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/) does support HTML, but gives no
information about what's supported. Poco Mail
(http://www.pocomail.com/features.html) can send and receive HTML mail
using an internal HTML rendering engine. Calypso's web site
(http://www.calypsoemail.com/index.htm) is currently unavailable to
obtain a feature list. Opera seems to display some HTML mail, but
doesn't allow its composition (which I might add, will require an HTML
composer which Opera currently doesn't have).
Since no one has yet answered the question why you *need* to have
HTML mail, I'll review some of its stated advantages (reasons some
users *want* HTML mail) and disadvantages.
Stated Advantages
-----------------
1) love letters to your girl => don't forget the image of a red heart
Personal opinion, thus I'll answer it with my personal opinion.
I'd be less likely to want to communicate with a woman via e-mail if
she sent me HTML mail that I can't read.
2) advertisement
Last time I checked, advertising through e-mail was on the way
out. At least, spammers are being cracked down on. Following are two
articles from *today* about spam crackdowns.
- FTC crosses borders in Net bust
(http://news.com.com/2100-1023-874198.html)
- AOL victorious in porn-spam case
(http://news.com.com/2100-1023-874664.html)
3) long, ugly links that would be wrapped
Non-issue. A properly designed e-mail client should deal with
these without the necessity of HTML.
4) long letters where one would format signal words
You mean like the way I've formatted my signal words throughout
this post? HTML is not necessary to do what you're asking.
5) email-application
What's that? I don't even know how to address this as I don't
even know what it is.
6) professional
As a technical writing student, I would strongly disagree. Using
any coloring or special formatting within professional / technical
papers is highly frowned upon. Try sending a company your résumé
through e-mail with colors, bullets, and styles. I can almost assure
you that it will be discarded.
7) one could use special symbols like Euro € or ä and so on,
and everywhere it will be displayed correct.
What about the é I used in my previous point? As stated
in a previous post, if an e-mail client properly sends the charset
header, there is absolutely no need for HTML.
And so I ask again, why do users *need* HTML mail? Opera 7's
mail client (part of the M2 project) will send e-mail, exactly what
users *need* to be able to do.
Stated Disadvantages
--------------------
1) Accessibility
Not everyone has an HTML mail client, thus *forcing* users to
view HTML mail doesn't make sense. E-mail is different from a web
page. One user sends an e-mail to another user, often not giving them
a choice whether they receive it or not. One user creates a web page
and it is my choice whether I view that page or not. HTML mail !=
Accessible mail.
2) Privacy/security
As previously stated, Outlook and Netscape have both suffered
security problems because of their support for HTML mails. Granted, a
good e-mail client should block these things, but an e-mail client
that doesn't even support them doesn't have to worry about all that
(i.e. less code complexity, thus less likely to allow
vulnerabilities).
3) Compatibility
What version of HTML does Outlook support? Netscape? Eudora?
4) Significant size reduction
HTML is additional markup that increases the size of e-mail
messages. For people who pay per minute or by bandwidth used have no
choice (as stated in point 1) whether to download your e-mail or not.
They must download it to see that it's HTML. Then, they might not
even be able to view it the way you intended.
It's fairly clear that the disadvantages far outweigh the
advantages. Users need to access their e-mail, but they don't need to
send and receive HTML mail.
Conclusions
-----------
There are two news clients that support HTML news: Netscape and
Outlook. Outlook is a security problem waiting to happen, mostly
because of it's support for HTML mail/news and other similar
extensions. Netscape has also had it's share of problems. The
current position on Usenet and related newsgroups seems to be that
using HTML to post will get you flamed, ignored, and quite likely
PLANK'd. In other words, Opera isn't losing anything to competitors
in this market.
There are two clients that seem to be able to compose HTML mail
of all types, and several clients that support a subset of HTML mail
sending and receiving. This in itself poses a problem. None of the
e-mail clients disclose which features they support and which version
of HTML they support. None as much as mention CSS. Only Poco mail
mentioned anything about Javascript and VBscript, stating only that it
knows nothing about them. It can be assumed that Outlook supports
anything that IE does, unfortunately. As noted above, Outlook is a
security problem waiting to happen....
It has yet to be shown any advantage a mail client that
understands HTML mail has over one that doesn't, other than the
ability to render the mail should it be sent.
Opera Software has made the decision not to support sending HTML
mail, as it will add complexity to their code (they'll need an HTML
composer) and will reduce the accessibility of e-mail to recipients,
amongst other things. They seem to know what they're talking about.
Xpost and fup2 opera.off-topic, as this no longer has anything to do
with Opera and is more a philosophical issue about HTML mail.
--
Tim Altman
roy...@myrealSP-AMbox.com
No SP-AM is good spam.
Some people call me... Tim
<voy...@NOSPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
>Just a quick thought: Maybe a kind of css - style sheets can be adapted for formating the
>look of emails in some feature...
You mean like mime.css in your Opera\styles directory?
>So my conclusion - I'm afraid we'll have to get adapted to it [ed: HTML mail]. Sooner or later.
>Let everyone decide on his own how long does he like to delay the moment.
I--and I'm sure others will--disagree. The majority of HTML mail
Rob Pitkin
wrote:
>From what you say, I assume, everytime you receive an HTML coded e-mail, you reply to your
>customer: "please send it to me in plain text 'cause I can't read it".
>
One Remark:
>I believe, Opera already displays HTML mail?
I still think when *writing* e-mail, it's only covers your own inadequacies.
Rob Pitkin
wrote:
>From what you say, I assume, everytime you receive an HTML coded e-mail, you reply to your
>customer: "please send it to me in plain text 'cause I can't read it".
>
And what's more I would not be complaining about *not* being able to read it,
I *would* be complaining if they continued sending me HTML *e-mail*
. . . . . . . *after* I asked them not to.
Does this plain/text message have enough *emphasis* for *You !* ? ? ?
Thank you.
Rob Pitkin
>
Absolutely amazing! Wow!
>
>"This mail was optimized for HTML Mail Reader 4.0 or newer. You are
>using an unsupported e-mail client. Please upgrade."
>
>Have we heard something similar before?
>
>So you basically tell people that in order to receive mail from you,
>they must use a program which does what you need it to do? Wow.
>
>> In fact, the only mailers (that I can think of) that *don't* let
>> you do one of these things are Outlook, Moz/Netscape and AOL --
>> and they all allow their users to send HTML. In fact, AOL doesn't
>> currently allow their users to send plain text!
>
>Look, you can't assume that the recipient can read HTML mail. Even
>if it is easy to read it as text/plain, the mail becomes more than
>twice the size just because of the HTML!
>
Wow! You've been hiding your light under something . . . . . ? ?
I have to ask; Why ?
Rob Pitkin
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
saying on 03 Apr 2002:
> You could make a XML-DTD for HTML-Mail (MML - Mail Markup
> Language), that only includes a subset of XHTML, then RFC it, then
> implement it, then hope others implement it too.
> I'm thinking of the following elements: blockquote, q, cite, p, a,
> code, one heading element: h1, ol + li, strong, em, pre and
> address for the sig.
You forgot <blink>.
;^)
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
crispen at hiwaay dot net
I asked my Magic Eight Ball what email program to use.
"OUTLOOK NOT SO GOOD"
Good old Magic Eight Ball! Thanks for the warning.
Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen
Apr 2002:
> /* Here goes the blink tag, not that it is supported in Opera
> anyway */ blink {text-decoration: inherit!important;}
Wanna bet? <http://home.hiwaay.net/~crispen/us/vcr_sim.html>.
Jernej Simonèiè
>>Do you know which newsreaders are the most popular? Agent, Gravity,
>>XNews. Agent and Gravity can't show HTML posts (I don't know about
>>XNews, but I think it doesn't handle HTML mails either). And, you
>>probably seen this quote before:
> Is it for Linux or Windows?
> I don't believe lame-users use clients which does not support HTML. Maybe by accident -
> when they don't know what is HTML and that there are clients, which handle it. :))
These are all Windows clients.
Jernej Simonèiè
> The most annoying e-spam isn't using HTML but MHTML (using
> multipart/mixed to incorporate images and other external files in the
> message).
No, these aren't the most annoying. Most annoying are HTML e-mails with
images, which are to be downloaded from the web - which allows spammers
to track you. Luckily my mailre doesn't download such images.
Christoph Päper
>
> Which is an argument *for* the three elements above.
I know, but it's not HTML then, only crappy deprecated tag soup, like
font.
> Using */_ as markup is not particularily readable, and cannot
> programmatically be converted into "real" markup.
There are newsreaders (don't know about email clients) that actually
format text marked up with */_. If you're used to it, it's very
readable in plain text, too.
> > strong
> You don't want bold, but want strong? This is inconsistent.
Well, strong is a completely different thing than b. It doesn't format
the font, but mark up the text, i.e. this tagged part of the text is
important. Guess an aural mail client.
> strong is not a semantic or even useful element).
Sure, you could use <em><em>Important</em></em> instead of
<strong>Important</strong> to mark up more important text than that in
single ems, but for some reason the W3C decided against that. And didn't
develop an element for unimportant text, thus some are using small for
that issue.
> For what it's worth, my top three markup elements in an email setting
would
> have been quote, headline and em (arguably also sig).
I agree on that, but to be compatible with existing email clients
capable of rendering HTML, you should use existing elements.
Christoph
Matthew Winn
> b, i, u are the most annoying HTML elements around, although only one
> (u) is deprecated. Nevertheless these can already be emulated with *b*,
> /i/ and _u_, as well as normal line break instead of p and putting the
> link between < and >.
> You could make a XML-DTD for HTML-Mail (MML - Mail Markup Language),
> that only includes a subset of XHTML, then RFC it, then implement it,
> then hope others implement it too.
Though I loathe HTML in email with a passion I could also see a use for
a limited set of standard elements. For some mails I could use <b>, <i>
and <u> for emphasis in various ways, <a> for links, <ol>, <ul> and <li>
for lists, and perhaps <h1> for long messages which benefit from clear
divisions. I could also use <tt> and <pre> for some technical messages.
<img> would be useful too because there are some things which just can't
be explained in text, but subject to the restriction that it could only
load images from included attachments and never from a server, and also
with the restriction that any attempt by the sender to include images
larger than (say) 20k would result in instant death.
I could find a use for <table> as well, but with a mail markup language
it should be possible to make sense of the source of formatted messages
for situations where the recipient can't handle the formatting. <table>
and its associated <tr>s and <td>s cause too much visual confusion.
> Christoph, *not* supporting HTML mail
Ditto, but given that there are large numbers of people out there who
want some sort of formatting it would be better to settle on some agreed
standard rather than continuing with the current "what version of HTML
do you support?" anarchy.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Jonny Axelsson
wrote:
> The kindly Rev. overheard Jonny Axelsson <j...@opera.no> saying on 03
> Apr 2002:
>
> > /* Here goes the blink tag, not that it is supported in Opera
> > anyway */ blink {text-decoration: inherit!important;}
>
> Wanna bet? <http://home.hiwaay.net/~crispen/us/vcr_sim.html>.
You used <div class="blink">, not <blink>. This has sound reasons, but I
find it somewhat amusing that the blink element is about the only thing you
can't get to blink in Opera (no, not even blink {text-decoration: blink;}).
Jonny Axelsson,
Documentation,
Opera Software
Jonny Axelsson
wrote:
> "Jonny Axelsson":
> > Using */_ as markup is not particularily readable, and cannot
> > programmatically be converted into "real" markup.
>
> There are newsreaders (don't know about email clients) that actually
> format text marked up with */_. If you're used to it, it's very
> readable in plain text, too.
No, they don't. They make an educated guess of when it is markup, in the
simple cases they get it right. But they slow down reading (and sometimes
understanding), and that matters. This also applies to text formatting, a
text with much font and color switching (including use of boldface and to a
much lesser degree italic) is much harder--slower--to read than
uninterrupted blocks of text. This is a separate issue from good tag/bad
tag, an A tag no better than <u><font color="garish"></font></u> here.
> > > strong
> > You don't want bold, but want strong? This is inconsistent.
>
> Well, strong is a completely different thing than b. It doesn't format
> the font, but mark up the text, i.e. this tagged part of the text is
> important. Guess an aural mail client.
Quoting appendix A:
@media speech {
STRONG { pitch: medium; pitch-range: 60; stress: 90; richness: 90 }
B { pitch: medium; pitch-range: 60; stress: 90; richness: 90 }
}
It really isn't what the b/strong/bold tag is called that matters, it is how
it is used. If you have studied texts, you'll find there are two main cases:
1. <p>Hey, <b>watch me!</b></p>
2. <b><p>First paragraph.</p><p>Second.</p><p>Third.</p></b>
In other words inline markup and block-level styling. The misuse in the
second case was rendered obsolete with the arrival of CSS and the DIV
element. It still has added information: these three paragraphs were meant
to stand out, and they are likely to belong together (though you can't be
sure).
> Sure, you could use <em><em>Important</em></em> instead of
> <strong>Important</strong> to mark up more important text than that in
> single ems, but for some reason the W3C decided against that. And didn't
> develop an element for unimportant text, thus some are using small for
> that issue.
I was unconvinced by them deprecating FONT and leaving BIG/SMALL untouched.
But these are going too now (and I believe in the long run so will STRONG).
Toby A Inkster
> the mail becomes more than
> twice the size just because of the HTML!
Compare the following two paragraphs -- about the importance of following
HTML standards -- from my website:
text:
So... why do I want to meet the standards? It's pretty simple really.
For example, I speak English. If I went around speaking in a particular
English dialect - for example, Cockney - the language of Londoners - not
all English speakers would be able to understand me. And so I try to speak
in plain and proper English so that everybody can understand what I say.
Similarly, I try to use plain and proper HTML to write my web pages. By
doing this, I can be sure that anyone using any browser should be able
to read this site.
HTML:
<p>
So... why do I want to meet the standards? It's pretty simple really.
For example, I speak English. If I went around speaking in a
particular English dialect - for example, Cockney - the language of
Londoners - not all English speakers would be able to understand me.
And so I try to speak in plain and proper English so that everybody
can understand what I say. Similarly, I try to use plain and proper
HTML to write my web pages. By doing this, I can be sure that <em>
anyone</em> using <em>any browser</em> should be able to read this
site.
</p>
Is the HTML version really that much more difficult to read??? The HTML
version is hardly "more than twice the size", is it? It's only an extra
24 characters!
--
Toby A Inkster, Esq., South Ealing, London, England.
Linux 2.4.19-pre3-bluesmoke. Up 1:45
Contact Details: http://toby-inkster.goddamn.co.uk/contact.html
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.
Coises
>I was unconvinced by them deprecating FONT and leaving BIG/SMALL untouched.
>But these are going too now (and I believe in the long run so will STRONG).
I'm unconvinced by the whole "separate style from structure" movement.
HTML ceased to be a language about the logical structure of documents ---
as opposed to a tool for pixel engineers --- apparently a couple of years
before I got my first exposure to the Internet (1997). I don't see how any
way of candy-coating that is going to change it. Page authors don't think
in terms of page logic, and it's now probably too late to undo the damage.
So you get pages that use CSS, and JavaScript/DOM, and what-have-you, and
depend on all those to produce a presentation that makes sense... what has
been gained? Seems to me like just more places for things to go wrong.
At least tag soup was *honest* tag soup.
Now we pretend that:
span.emphasis {font-weight: 700;}
...
<span class="emphasis">important stuff</span>
is somehow more meaningful than:
<B>important stuff</B>
(because it takes two standards and several times as much code?).
--
Peace, Ra...@Coises.com
Why does Coises have a web site? Why do peanuts come with directions?
Pages at http://www.coises.com/ were updated 5 March 2002.
Wojciech E.
>On 03. 04. 02 21:39:35, Jonny Axelsson wrote:
>
>> The most annoying e-spam isn't using HTML but MHTML (using
>> multipart/mixed to incorporate images and other external files in the
>> message).
>
>No, these aren't the most annoying. Most annoying are HTML e-mails with
>images, which are to be downloaded from the web - which allows spammers
>to track you. Luckily my mailre doesn't download such images.
Oh yes! That is annoying!
WE
Richard Grevers
said...
MIME/multipart : one part the HTML version, and the other plaintext for
clients which can't handle HTML. Also, there is usually a head section
added.
Wojciech E.
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 02:37:07 +0200, "Wojciech E." <voy...@NOSPAM.komtech.com.pl>
>wrote:
>
>
>>From what you say, I assume, everytime you receive an HTML coded e-mail, you reply to
your
>>customer: "please send it to me in plain text 'cause I can't read it".
>>
>And what's more I would not be complaining about *not* being able to read it,
>I *would* be complaining if they continued sending me HTML *e-mail*
> . . . . . . . *after* I asked them not to.
> Does this plain/text message have enough *emphasis* for *You !* ? ? ?
>Thank you.
It has much emphasis. You did it nice. :)
Maybe we leave in different countries, different worlds, but in mine, it would be
incomprehensible for most of the people (especially business, non-technical people) why
they should stop using HTML. It's nicer to look so how can I persuade them that plain text
is better??
I should say, explain why I don't like HTML mail. So I would say: because:
1. ?
2. ??
3. ???
I do not see any reasons that I can justify using plain text to non technical people. They
like to bold words and they find it nice. They won't like bolding by *b*. It's an absurd
for most of non-technical people. So how can I get them like to plain text...? I don't see
a way... Do you? What would be the arguments for such people...
Best Regards
Wojciech E.