Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Original HTML vs. Simple HTML
824 views
Skip to first unread message
Herb
Jan 9, 2012, 8:31:36 AM1/9/12
to
I get the impression that Simple HTML works better for me than Original
HTML, but I would like to find out a little more.
I read the page at
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29>, but it
doesn't say a lot about the difference between Original HTML and Simple
HTML. Perhaps it's all I need to know? :-)
--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
HTML, but I would like to find out a little more.
I read the page at
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29>, but it
doesn't say a lot about the difference between Original HTML and Simple
HTML. Perhaps it's all I need to know? :-)
--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
WLS
Jan 9, 2012, 8:38:16 AM1/9/12
to
On 01/09/2012 08:31 AM, Herb aliandika:
> I get the impression that Simple HTML works better for me than Original
> HTML, but I would like to find out a little more.
>
> I read the page at
> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29>, but it
> doesn't say a lot about the difference between Original HTML and Simple
> HTML. Perhaps it's all I need to know? :-)
>
Simple HTML is a "sanitized" version.
> I get the impression that Simple HTML works better for me than Original
> HTML, but I would like to find out a little more.
>
> I read the page at
> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29>, but it
> doesn't say a lot about the difference between Original HTML and Simple
> HTML. Perhaps it's all I need to know? :-)
>
"Messages sent in HTML format may be viewed in plain text format, in a
"sanitized" version called Simple HTML or a full HTML."
http://tinyurl.com/7lysp8a
--
Thunderbird 12.0a1 Daily with SPDY enabled
Roger Hünen
Jan 9, 2012, 8:53:38 AM1/9/12
to
On 2012/01/09 14:38, WLS wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 08:31 AM, Herb aliandika:
>> I get the impression that Simple HTML works better for me than Original
>> HTML, but I would like to find out a little more.
>>
>> I read the page at
>> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29>, but it
>> doesn't say a lot about the difference between Original HTML and Simple
>> HTML. Perhaps it's all I need to know? :-)
>>
>
> Simple HTML is a "sanitized" version.
>
> "Messages sent in HTML format may be viewed in plain text format, in a
> "sanitized" version called Simple HTML or a full HTML."
Well... that explains it all! Not really... I guess I am not the only one
> On 01/09/2012 08:31 AM, Herb aliandika:
>> I get the impression that Simple HTML works better for me than Original
>> HTML, but I would like to find out a little more.
>>
>> I read the page at
>> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29>, but it
>> doesn't say a lot about the difference between Original HTML and Simple
>> HTML. Perhaps it's all I need to know? :-)
>>
>
> Simple HTML is a "sanitized" version.
>
> "Messages sent in HTML format may be viewed in plain text format, in a
> "sanitized" version called Simple HTML or a full HTML."
who would welcome a somewhat more detailed description of the differences
between Simple HTML and Full HTML.
Regards,
-Roger
Poutnik
Jan 9, 2012, 9:00:25 AM1/9/12
to
In article <rbadnSsunc7-bJfS...@mozilla.org>,
rhu...@xs4all.nl says...
I am guessing the Simple HTML is removing some code
that are questinable from security or compatibility point of view.
--
Poutnik
rhu...@xs4all.nl says...
that are questinable from security or compatibility point of view.
--
Poutnik
WLS
Jan 9, 2012, 9:11:46 AM1/9/12
to
text, in simple HTML, the images were removed, and in original HTML, I
could view it the message in all its glory (phew! almost typed it's).
I guess you could view a message in each flavor, and then check the
message source Ctrl+U, to see if you can spot the differences.
Greywolf
Jan 9, 2012, 9:42:32 AM1/9/12
to
of malformation that should be in the kb article. "Sanitized" with no
context is meaningless. (I could continue my usual rant about the
uselessness of most kb content here, but I won't: count yourselves
lucky. ;-) )
Wolf K.
WLS
Jan 9, 2012, 9:54:31 AM1/9/12
to
"The third option Simple HTML isn't used as much. Its similar to the
Original HTML setting but will only interpret basic HTML commands,
disables Javascript, and doesn't display remote images."
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plain_text_e-mail_%28Thunderbird%29#Displaying_messages
Greywolf
Jan 9, 2012, 10:25:32 AM1/9/12
to
On 09/01/2012 9:54 AM, WLS wrote:
Greywolf (me) wrote
indicates that the article needs editing, re-organising and
simplification mostly. Along the lines of:
.......................................
"Show ...HTML" means "display the message as if it were a web page/web
site."
Options are:
Simple HTML : will interpret basic HTML commands,
that have been embedded (included) in the page.
Original HTML: will interpret all HTML. You will see everything
the writer included. It will look like a web page.
Plain Text: shows text only, without bold/italics, etc. Embedded
images etc will usually show as attachments in the Status Bar.
.........................................
Short, sweet, and in language the naive/average user can understand. I
offer the above as a suggestion for replacement for whatever's there. I
leave correction of any errors up to the kb article editors.
HTH
Wolf K.
Greywolf (me) wrote
>> Thanks for doing the test, now we know. But this is precisely the kind
>> > of information that should be in the kb article. "Sanitized" with no
>> > context is meaningless. (I could continue my usual rant about the
>> > uselessness of most kb content here, but I won't: count yourselves
>> > lucky.;-) )
>> >
>> > Wolf K.
>> >
>
> From the same KB article.
>
> "The third option Simple HTML isn't used as much. Its similar to the
> Original HTML setting but will only interpret basic HTML commands,
> disables Javascript, and doesn't display remote images."
Good. So the info is there after all. The fact that OP couldn't 'see" it
>> > uselessness of most kb content here, but I won't: count yourselves
>> > lucky.;-) )
>> >
>> > Wolf K.
>> >
>
> From the same KB article.
>
> "The third option Simple HTML isn't used as much. Its similar to the
> Original HTML setting but will only interpret basic HTML commands,
> disables Javascript, and doesn't display remote images."
indicates that the article needs editing, re-organising and
simplification mostly. Along the lines of:
.......................................
"Show ...HTML" means "display the message as if it were a web page/web
site."
Options are:
Simple HTML : will interpret basic HTML commands,
disables Javascript, and doesn't display remote images.
You will see text in colours, bold. italics, etc., and images
that have been embedded (included) in the page.
Original HTML: will interpret all HTML. You will see everything
the writer included. It will look like a web page.
Plain Text: shows text only, without bold/italics, etc. Embedded
images etc will usually show as attachments in the Status Bar.
.........................................
Short, sweet, and in language the naive/average user can understand. I
offer the above as a suggestion for replacement for whatever's there. I
leave correction of any errors up to the kb article editors.
HTH
Wolf K.
JoeS
Jan 9, 2012, 10:42:14 AM1/9/12
to
mailnews.display.html_sanitizer.allowed_tags
--
*JoeS*
Greywolf
Jan 9, 2012, 11:05:27 AM1/9/12
to
wouldn't begin to guess that such a pref exists. If it's of serious
importance, it should be converted to a settings page....
HTH
Wolf K.
Herb
Jan 9, 2012, 11:23:44 AM1/9/12
to
On 09.01.2012 15:25 UK Time, Greywolf wrote:
> On 09/01/2012 9:54 AM, WLS wrote:
>
> Greywolf (me) wrote
>>> Thanks for doing the test, now we know. But this is precisely the kind
>>> > of information that should be in the kb article. "Sanitized" with no
>>> > context is meaningless. (I could continue my usual rant about the
>>> > uselessness of most kb content here, but I won't: count yourselves
>>> > lucky.;-) )
>>> >
>>> > Wolf K.
>>> >
>>
>> From the same KB article.
>>
>> "The third option Simple HTML isn't used as much. Its similar to the
>> Original HTML setting but will only interpret basic HTML commands,
>> disables Javascript, and doesn't display remote images."
>
> Good. So the info is there after all. The fact that OP couldn't 'see" it
> indicates that the article needs editing, re-organising and
> simplification mostly.
I *had* seen the info but was looking for a little more :-)
> On 09/01/2012 9:54 AM, WLS wrote:
>
> Greywolf (me) wrote
>>> Thanks for doing the test, now we know. But this is precisely the kind
>>> > of information that should be in the kb article. "Sanitized" with no
>>> > context is meaningless. (I could continue my usual rant about the
>>> > uselessness of most kb content here, but I won't: count yourselves
>>> > lucky.;-) )
>>> >
>>> > Wolf K.
>>> >
>>
>> From the same KB article.
>>
>> "The third option Simple HTML isn't used as much. Its similar to the
>> Original HTML setting but will only interpret basic HTML commands,
>> disables Javascript, and doesn't display remote images."
>
> Good. So the info is there after all. The fact that OP couldn't 'see" it
> indicates that the article needs editing, re-organising and
> simplification mostly.
Anyway, thanks for all the replies.
I since realised that what I said in my original message (i.e. "I get
the impression that Simple HTML works better for me than Original HTML")
is in fact nonsense, i.e. for most messages (especially e-newsletters
etc.) Simple HTML actually messes up the message content, but in some
instances where I had some problems with message display the Simple HTML
option seems to offer a solution.
--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
Axel Grude
Jan 10, 2012, 5:05:41 AM1/10/12
to
html head title body p br div(lang,title) h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6 ul(type,compact)
ol(type,compact,start) li(type,value) dl dt dd blockquote(type,cite) pre noscript
noframes strong em sub sup span(lang,title) acronym(title) abbr(title)
del(title,cite,datetime) ins(title,cite,datetime) q(cite) a(href,name,title)
img(alt,title,longdesc,src) base(href) area(alt) applet(alt) object(alt) var samp dfn
address kbd code cite s strike tt b i table(align) caption tr(align,valign)
td(rowspan,colspan,align,valign) th(rowspan,colspan,align,valign) wbr
hmm, looks like we should at least add "style" to this list to make it more useful.
lep...@gmail.com
May 27, 2013, 9:13:23 AM5/27/13
to
For some character encodings, it makes difference when you receive mail, for example, (Trebuchet MS font) character Ā with "Baltic (Windows-1257)" encoding wiht Original HTML settings shows as Ä€ due to some kind html restrictions, but in Simple HTML it shows normal as it needs to be, but for UTF-8 it shows normal on both options.
best regards
0 new messages