Microsoft holds back the web again

[_dandy_]

People that send HTML emails should have crocodile clips clamped to their nuts, then be dangled by said clips over a 20 foot deep pit filled with scorpions and have 5000 volts run through their nuts every 10 seconds.

For a year.

+1.

If you can't convey what you're trying to say in plain text, you *really* need to take a step back and figure out how to get to the point. It's an email, not a brochure.

It would also be pretty freakin' difficult to send viruses if all an email client understood was plain text.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Wow, there's a LOT of people here who just don't get it...

Outlook is a mail client, just as Thunderbird and others are. The others (and Outlook previous to Office 2007) render HTML emails as HTML, conforming as much as possible to HTML specs (inc CSS).

For years web developers have been able to build HTML mails to these specs. The Outlook 2007 changed it...

HTML emails are now rendered as Word documents, not conforming at all.

"So? If you don't like it - don't use it"...

Please see the bigger picture. This is about designers reaching their end audience. We have no control over what the user is reading out HTML emails in... Get it?

[Eric Veteran]

Test your browser here.

How well does IE8 support DOM Level 1 from 1998?

XHTML is not a standard? You're kidding, right?

XHTML

SVG is not a standard? You're kidding, right?

SVG

CSS 2.1 was only finalized 2 years ago yet all the browsers, except IE of course, supported it. Standards are based on implementations. Standards bodies generally do not invent anything. ALL the modern browsers, not IE of course, are implementing quite a bit of CSS3 and HTML5. A large number of developers are implementing HTML5 methods now.

Javascript? Or do you mean JScript? Which is it? Microsoft is fighting the standards committee on that right now. But Microsoft doesn't show up to the meetings till the last minute when everyone else has already voted. Same with the HTML5 Working Group. Microsoft co-chairs but never shows to meetings, doesn't return email or phone calls. Guess they don't care about the future of the web. Obvious with what they've done to Outlook.

Check the real test from the W3C in IE8 which I link to above. Then do it again in a modern browser (any browser but IE).

DOM test (from your link): User agent strings don't imply passing grades. Both IE8 and Firefox get failures running the actual test that is farther down the page.

XHTML (from your link): "W3C Recommendation 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002"

SVG (from your link): "W3C Recommendation 14 January 2003, edited in place 30 April 2009"

As I said already, CSS3 and HTML5 are drafts, not standards. And JavaScript/JScript? Try ECMAScript. They changed it years ago and it works fine.

[Xenomorph]

Outlook != the web

In the business world, Outlook is the standard.

[drhowarddrfine]

DOM test (from your link): User agent strings don't imply passing grades. Both IE8 and Firefox get failures running the actual test that is farther down the page.

XHTML (from your link): "W3C Recommendation 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002"

SVG (from your link): "W3C Recommendation 14 January 2003, edited in place 30 April 2009"

As I said already, CSS3 and HTML5 are drafts, not standards. And JavaScript/JScript? Try ECMAScript. They changed it years ago and it works fine.

Man, you reeeaaalllly don't know what's going on. Are you aware that ALL web "standards" from the W3C are only "recommendations"? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors follow those "recommendations"? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors participated in the writing of those "recommendations"? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors sign off on those "recommendations" before they are published? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors are members of the W3C? Do you know what "de facto" means?

Are you claiming HTML is not a standard because it's only published as a "recommendation"?

And you really think Brendan Eich is happy with Microsoft's non-participation in ECMA? If you don't know what I'm talking about, google for it.

[majortom1981]

Question does thunderbird support these?

[supernova_00]

You show me one browser that passed the even the acid 2 test 11 years ago

Where did you pull that little "fact" from?

None. But old Firefox 1.0 and earlier gets a higher score in the Acid 2 test then IE8 does today. I find that hilarious!

[NightmarE D]

Why is this thread aloud to remain open? Its nothing more than a bashing session at IE...

Any thread that has posts by drhowarddrfine is going to turn into a "Windows users suck and don't know what they're talking about" thread.

All I've seen this person do is bait Windows users so he can start attacking them and it's very obvious that's all he does. I don't see how he hasn't been banned after some of the comments he's made the last few days.

[tunafish]

None. But old Firefox 1.0 and earlier gets a higher score in the Acid 2 test then IE8 does today. I find that hilarious!

Thats funny as IE8 passes it by wait for it 100%

Go troll somewhere else

[Simon Veteran]

What if someone sends a Word-based email and someone else opens it inside Windows Live Mail (as an example)? Aren't the Office team shunning the Live team in that way?

HTML was decided to be the standard for rich email when we started reading email inside web browsers. It was impulsive in that way. Maybe it was never set in stone, but it happened and we can't go back on it.

That being said, it's rare that I would send an HTML based mail to someone. I receive plenty of them from various companies in the form of newsletters, but other than that it doesn't affect me. But if all mail clients supported standards, maybe we could usher in a new generation of email, who knows.

[drhowarddrfine]

Please note: The Acid2/3 test is not a test of web standards compliance but a test of how a browser reacts to different implementations and invalid code. You can pass the Acid tests yet still not be 100% compliant.

[majortom1981]

He is complaining about outlooks web compliance not the browsers. Can somebody tell me if thunderbird supports web browser standards?

[bob21]

Holding back th internet thts a laugh coming from the same crowd that failed to implmnt vido or audio playback for the last 8 years .As long as IE8 refuses to support OGV as a web developer ill be a happy camper.

[drhowarddrfine]

Holding back th internet thts a laugh coming from the same crowd that failed to implmnt vido or audio playback for the last 8 years .As long as IE8 refuses to support OGV as a web developer ill be a happy camper.

This post makes no sense at all.

[Lechio]

Any thread that has posts by drhowarddrfine is going to turn into a "Windows users suck and don't know what they're talking about" thread.

All I've seen this person do is bait Windows users so he can start attacking them and it's very obvious that's all he does. I don't see how he hasn't been banned after some of the comments he's made the last few days.

This person is not making attacks towards your person. I see him commenting on the topic, you on the other hand had nothing to add to the thread.

If there's a reason to ban someone it's up to a moderator.

Thats funny as IE8 passes it by wait for it 100%

Go troll somewhere else

Only took them what? 5 years? And like drhowarddrfine said, 100% on the Acid2/3 test doesn't mean it's 100% compliant with web standards. With that said, try to run the Acid3 test on IE. Here's mine:

[Growled Member]

Please see the bigger picture. This is about designers reaching their end audience. We have no control over what the user is reading out HTML emails in... Get it?

What the user uses to read his email is sort of out of your control anyway, so why worry about it?

[drhowarddrfine]

What the user uses to read his email is sort of out of your control anyway, so why worry about it?

The problem is the designer's ability to rely on modern standards and practices working in Outlook.

[Growled Member]

Again, why worry about it? Just do the best you can with what you have to work with. If you want modern standards and practices move to Linux.

[Futurix]

What if someone sends a Word-based email and someone else opens it inside Windows Live Mail (as an example)? Aren't the Office team shunning the Live team in that way?

These e-mails are not Word-based, they are still HTML and will show just fine in any e-mail client. The only problem here is that Office 2007/2010 developers stopped using IE rendering engine and replaced it with Word rendering engine which is much more limited than IE one.

I find it funny that it took 2.5 years for "e-mail designers" to wake up and start a fuss :laugh:

Myself, I like that Outlook has limited HTML rendering - it is more secure.

[HawkMan]

Man, you reeeaaalllly don't know what's going on. Are you aware that ALL web "standards" from the W3C are only "recommendations"? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors follow those "recommendations"? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors participated in the writing of those "recommendations"? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors sign off on those "recommendations" before they are published? Are you aware that ALL browser vendors are members of the W3C? Do you know what "de facto" means?

Are you claiming HTML is not a standard because it's only published as a "recommendation"?

And you really think Brendan Eich is happy with Microsoft's non-participation in ECMA? If you don't know what I'm talking about, google for it.

oh so "de feacto" standards are ok now ? I seem to remember when 95% of the web browsers used the IE de facto web standard, I don't remember "de facto" web standards being ok back then...

[Doli]

I would rather have text only email that has a link to the HTML, CSS, and graphics if I want to click it.

Is Outlook really made for average users or more towards a companies' users who can compose fancy emails using Office Word, Excell, Publisher, etc to send to other Outlook users in the company? Maybe its a problem getting Word, Excell, Publisher to do proper HTML with CSS with all the new features in each program without going the plug-in route but that should be no reason to not go with standards.

Who can really get into the minds of a company and their decisions?

[shockz]

People that send HTML emails should have crocodile clips clamped to their nuts, then be dangled by said clips over a 20 foot deep pit filled with scorpions and have 5000 volts run through their nuts every 10 seconds.

For a year.

There are very good reasons for HTML in e-mail.

If I want to send a copy and pasted table from a website... I should be able to do so with out having to worry if the other person is going to be able to see it on the other end. I shouldn't have to fire up excel, copy and paste the table, which will for sure be botched and need editing, and then attach the document, and then have a novice computer user on the other end not know how to open attachments, not have excel or a document reader, or refuse to open it because their too stupid and think it's a virus.

Worrying about all that and taking at least 5-10 minutes to create it in excel, vs a simple copy and paste in an HTML e-mail... hmmmm..

Edited June 25, 2009 by shockz
Typo

[FloatingFatMan]

There are very good reasons for HTML in e-mail.

If I want to send a copy and pasted table from a website... I should be able to do so with out having to worry if the other person is going to be able to see it on the other end. I shouldn't have to fire up excel, copy and paste the table, which will for sure be botched and need editing, and then attach the document, and then have a novice computer user on the other end not know how to open attachments, not have excel or a document reader, or refuse to open it because their too stupid and think it's a virus.

Worrying about all that and taking at least 5-10 minutes to create it in excel, vs a simple copy and paste in an HTML e-mail... hmmmm..

By all means take the time to do that.

But if you send that email to me, it will get rejected automatically. ;)

Email should be just plain text only. If you need to send someone pretty tables, then yes.. Take the time and put them in an attachment. If less HTML emails were sent, there'd be less newbies getting virus or trojan infections.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Any one though that Microsoft cannot use the IE engine in Outlook because of possible lawsuits with the EU?

Nothing to do with the EU (Don't see why, an application using one engine over another isn't an antitrust issue)

Edit: Considering that both their choices are still MS tech.

...

It would also be pretty freakin' difficult to send viruses if all an email client understood was plain text.

Well of course, if you limited e-mails to plain text and disallowed any attachments you couldn't send any viruses because you couldn't send anything.

HTML vs. Plain Text won't increase the risk of viruses unless your mail client sucks, any halfway decent mail client will disallow scripts in HTML e-mails (including Outlook)

[ScottKin]

Let's be honest, shall we?

89% of all email that is sent in an HTML setting is SPAM.

:spam:

Let me repeat that: SPAM!

:spam:

My inbox is inundated every day with HTML-mail about Acaci Berries that can cure Lung Cancer, or the Fascinating Carreer possibilities that await me in the field of Sham-Wow Forensics, or the 4,721 people that have sent me a trial membership to a dating site for people who are so inept at relationships that they have to resort to using a WEB SITE to find love....or something resembling love.

The remaining percentages is nearly split by old grannies who think that when they compose an e-mail that it should be on some nice e-stationery, and people who have just figured out that they can send an email that looks like it was done using said nice e-stationery, or cute pictures of cats appearing like they're on one of the finest acid trips of the last 2 decades.

I have *never* sent a single email that used HTML. Ever. If I'm replying to an email that was originally sent as HTML, I will convert it to TEXT and remove the fancy-schmansy pictures and gunk and FORCE them to look at bleak, void-of-puppy-dog-warmness black and white...including any HTML code! They deserve it!

You want perddy pictures with your email? That's what ATTACHMENTS are for, Chuck!

:argh:

If the blessed-and-washed W3C wants real standards, then things like Flash and Silverlight should be burned and take everyone back to HTML 1.0. The Internet is for creation and new things and ideas and concepts. So what if IE8 isn't 100% compliant - no one else is. Heck, the majority of the Web Sites on the Intarwebtubes aren't even compliant with "web standards" themselves! Has anyone passed YouTube through a code-standards verifier? Was it W3C-blessed? The last time I checked, YouTube was vastly more popular than the <yawn> fully-W3C-Compliant webpages that describe your licence-plate website, or your website devoted to the-collection-of-Star-Wars-Toys-so-large-that-it-could-choke-100-Blue-Whales-at-one-sitting.

:dontgetit:

Let the Internet grow by telling the "Standards are Standards and should be...ummm...STANDARD!" Crew to soak their heads and stop trying to appear all-important. Embrace Flash, Flex, Silverlight, Moonlight and other vastly-more-cool-things. What ever happened to DHTML? Flash, Flex, Silverlight, Moonlight and other vastly-more-cool-things, that's what happened to DHTML! Relegated to the "Oh-this-is-a-nice-ideaOOOOOOOH-THAT-LOOKS-MUCH-NICER-THAN-DHTML!" bin.

--ScottKin