@shrimpdesign:Emails are solitary documents. The advantage provided by CSS is not that it is inherently more concise, but rather that all presentational aspects of the design can (theoretically) be centralized in one file, which can then be cached. Since each email in your inbox is likely to have a different stylesheet, the advantage of one approach over another is questionable.
Are you not understanding what is going on? Your e-mail is being RENDERED by the word engine... you are not sending .doc files around.The word engine is going to attempt to render hypertext and it may highlight some things that are not hypertext for convenience... like how alot of message boards do (like making an http link clickable without any tags needed). It's still just text and attachments being sent around...
So all you guys are mad that somebody cna't send you an email with lots of email crap with background images. 100% of emails that need this feature is spam.
Outlook is the only email client I know of that doesn't handle multipart/alternative sensibly. If someone sends you a dual-format message with html and plain text parts (which would satisfy many of those on here who prefer plain text part), there is no way of viewing the plain text part correctly. You do have a choice in options - you can either view the rendered HTML part, or you can view the raw and undecoded, message as plain text, but not the clean text part you're after.Some corporate mail filters do some truly terrible things to HTML messages. I encountered one (a big name in such things) that did this:Convert linked images to attachments (ostensibly in order to prevent 'web bugs', and reduce gateway traffic)Convert the HTML to plain text by simply removing HTML tags, while doing something very strange that looks like an attempt to preserve layout, but actually results in a nice sentence jumbling effect.Remove all line breaksRemove the plain text partThe resulting message is completely unreadable, and further irritates by having added a bunch of meaningless, out of context images. Amazingly, some very large companies pay to have this done to their email. What they should do of course is simply drop the HTML part, leaving the plain text version intact. It achieves all of their aims, with none of the mistakes. Their current approach says one thing very clearly: we don't have a clue about email.
Once again... Microsoft decided to screw things up again. It seems like every time they see their market share go down the do something like this. Rightfully so, from a business standpoint is a good idea but, cripples the greater good and makes the ENTIRE technology field move just a little slower. I guess that's the type of things you can do you're a multi billion dollar corporation that buys out all of its competitors.
We provide an Outlook Add-In to solve this problem, which let you get html email back to Outlook and keep Outlook existed security and functionality. If you want to try, you can surfer our web page on http://www.zidiyn.com/Focus/Focus/224
meezJan 12, 2007
And thankfully Microsoft are working to rid the world of idiots that DO use html/css in email.Email should be text-only.
metasquaresJan 13, 2007
@shrimpdesign:Emails are solitary documents. The advantage provided by CSS is not that it is inherently more concise, but rather that all presentational aspects of the design can (theoretically) be centralized in one file, which can then be cached. Since each email in your inbox is likely to have a different stylesheet, the advantage of one approach over another is questionable.
yashuJan 13, 2007
Are you not understanding what is going on? Your e-mail is being RENDERED by the word engine... you are not sending .doc files around.The word engine is going to attempt to render hypertext and it may highlight some things that are not hypertext for convenience... like how alot of message boards do (like making an http link clickable without any tags needed). It's still just text and attachments being sent around...
ogletreeJan 13, 2007
So all you guys are mad that somebody cna't send you an email with lots of email crap with background images. 100% of emails that need this feature is spam.
dgoldingJan 14, 2007
My company sends out a bunch of subscription-based newsletters. This news almost made our IT director cry. And he's not a crier.
coolbruJan 15, 2007
Outlook is the only email client I know of that doesn't handle multipart/alternative sensibly. If someone sends you a dual-format message with html and plain text parts (which would satisfy many of those on here who prefer plain text part), there is no way of viewing the plain text part correctly. You do have a choice in options - you can either view the rendered HTML part, or you can view the raw and undecoded, message as plain text, but not the clean text part you're after.Some corporate mail filters do some truly terrible things to HTML messages. I encountered one (a big name in such things) that did this:Convert linked images to attachments (ostensibly in order to prevent 'web bugs', and reduce gateway traffic)Convert the HTML to plain text by simply removing HTML tags, while doing something very strange that looks like an attempt to preserve layout, but actually results in a nice sentence jumbling effect.Remove all line breaksRemove the plain text partThe resulting message is completely unreadable, and further irritates by having added a bunch of meaningless, out of context images. Amazingly, some very large companies pay to have this done to their email. What they should do of course is simply drop the HTML part, leaving the plain text version intact. It achieves all of their aims, with none of the mistakes. Their current approach says one thing very clearly: we don't have a clue about email.
Closed AccountMar 12, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://www.design-sites.net/">http://www.design-sites.net/</a>
darknailblueApr 21, 2007
Once again... Microsoft decided to screw things up again. It seems like every time they see their market share go down the do something like this. Rightfully so, from a business standpoint is a good idea but, cripples the greater good and makes the ENTIRE technology field move just a little slower. I guess that's the type of things you can do you're a multi billion dollar corporation that buys out all of its competitors.
dmitriyvozJun 21, 2007
The author has mentioned very much a vital topic today. It seems to me that the problematics of this clause enables to reflect and draw conclusions. You can as to look sites in Russian which mention this theme: <a class="user" href="http://www.rolid.org">http://www.rolid.org</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.se-ua.com">http://www.se-ua.com</a>
mendiggJun 24, 2007
As a Web designer that never learned how to build a page using nested tables and other hacks, I feel for the newest crop of designers that will have to learn bad design simply to comply with Microsoft's ignorance. <a class="user" href="http://www.rolid.org">http://www.rolid.org</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.se-ua.com">http://www.se-ua.com</a>
trendafilkaNov 25, 2007
<a class="user" href="http://1alternativeremedies.blogspot.com/">http://1alternativeremedies.blogspot.com/</a><a class="user" href="http://computerseminartopicsnetworking.blogspot.com/">http://computerseminartopicsnetworking.blogspot.co ...</a><a class="user" href="http://bipolardisordercare.blogspot.com/">http://bipolardisordercare.blogspot.com/</a>
Lucky_LuNov 18, 2011
We provide an Outlook Add-In to solve this problem, which let you get html email back to Outlook and keep Outlook existed security and functionality. If you want to try, you can surfer our web page on http://www.zidiyn.com/Focus/Focus/224
Lucky_LuNov 18, 2011
Both renders have pros and cons, we need to keep a sort of balance.