<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFee" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">+1 on all of Axel's comment below.<br>
BTW if you are using google groups, or viewing in plaintext, you
can't really get a handle on what Axel is talking about.<br>
<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=545685">bug
671320</a> has a nice demo as well.<br>
You might ask yourself why folks try to send these kinds of mail.<br>
For me, it is a matter of expressionism, and an outlet for
creativity.(such as it is)<br>
I have no idea about the user base for incredimail, but I imagine
they use it for the same reasons.<br>
(It generates about as much crap as using msword as an html
editor)<br>
We could do much better, given an enhanced editor. <br>
</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">JoeS</pre>
<br>
On 7/18/2012 18:15, Axel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:50073579.7050304@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div id="smartTemplate4-template">Hello Kent,<br>
<br>
<style type="text/css">
.myName:hover { font-size:13pt; text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px rgba(200,250,200,0.7);}
</style>
<div id="mySignature" style="width: 65%; padding: 0.8em 1.2em;
font:x-small verdana; color: #444; box-shadow: 4px 4px 9px
-2px rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border-radius: 1em; padding: 0.4em 2em;
border: 1px dashed #444; background: rgb(230,240,163);
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(230,240,163,1)
0%,rgba(210,230,56,1) 50%,rgba(195,216,37,1)
51%,rgba(219,240,67,1) 100%); background:
-moz-linear-gradient(top, rgba(230,240,163,1) 0%,
rgba(210,230,56,1) 50%, rgba(195,216,37,1) 51%,
rgba(219,240,67,1) 100%);"> <b class="myName"
style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px
#DDD;cursor:pointer;-moz-transition-property:font-size;
-moz-transition-duration: 0.5s;">Axel Grude</b> <br>
Software Developer <br>
Thunderbird Add-ons Developer <span style="color:#666666;
font-size:xx-small">(QuickFolders, quickFilters,
QuickPasswords, Zombie Keys, SmartTemplate4)</span> <br>
AMO Editor </div>
<hr>
<style type="text/css">#newHeader { font-size: x-small; }#newHeader b { font-weight:bold; color: #990033; }</style>
<div id="newHeader"> <b>To: </b>"tb-planning"<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org"><tb-planning@mozilla.org></a>
<br>
<b>From: </b>"Kent James"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kent@caspia.com"><kent@caspia.com></a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Mittwoch, 18/07/12 18:30:26 18:30 GMT +0100
[Week 29]<br>
<b>Subject:</b>Re: Papercuts discussion - Composer related
enhancements</div>
</div>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_5006F2B2_7020309_caspia_com"
cite="mid:5006F2B2.7020309@caspia.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 7/17/2012 3:01 PM, Axel wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_5005E0AF_1020004_gmail_com"
cite="mid:5005E0AF.1020004@gmail.com" type="cite"> If you were
going for major compatibility you (e.g. outlook fidelity) you
would have to back pedal so far... I personally for HTML email
CSS is the future (as it is for HTML5). <br>
<br>
<b>If Thunderbird can lead by example, then this is the one
area where I would like it to be brave: <u><br>
</u></b>
<ul>
<li><b><u>be CSS3 compliant</u>; </b></li>
<li><b><u>encourage use of CSS</u></b>; <br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>it is not that hard. Just use a proper browser engine,
there are plenty choices out there. Of course, composing is
an entirely different kettle of fish (that's the hard bit).
:)</p>
</blockquote>
This is an issue where lack of clarity of our core product
positioning makes it hard to choose.<br>
<br>
I doubt if many of our users would want us to be "lead by
example" and sacrifice "major compatibility (with) ... outlook"
in the process.<br>
</blockquote>
I don't think that this "sacrifice compatibility" is something we
need to actively <i>drive.<br>
</i><br>
In fact this process of eroding "major compatibility" is already
an ongoing one, but actively and instigated "from the other
side". Since Microsoft has decided to drop Triton and use Word as
HTML rendering engine in Outlook 2007; please have a read at this:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-answers-outlook-2007-critics-on-rendering-engine-changes/229">http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-answers-outlook-2007-critics-on-rendering-engine-changes/229</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><strong>Q: "Are there any plans to add support for the other
HTML and CSS standards to Word’s engine?"</strong></p>
<p><strong>A:</strong> "The Word team is continually examining
HTML and CSS support based on customer feedback."</p>
</blockquote>
so here is the deal and my thought process behind this - if we add
simplified editing support for CSS3 features like gradients,
border-radius and box-shadow, this won't "break compatibility"
with word, but you get <b>better usability and high fidelity </b>within
<b>Thunderbird corporate environments and with private Thunderbird
users</b>; for the web based email clients it wouldn't be hard
to gradually add support for these features (they would just have
to be a bit more cautious "ripping out" "undesired" layout) [-
also, have a look at what they make of emails authored with
Outlook.]<br>
<br>
At the same time, Word as text editor integrated within Outlook
is doubtless "A Neat Thing" which enables outlook users to very
simply generate highly complex layouts that can be truthfully
transmitted within the boundaries of the platform (basically,
Exchange networks). <br>
<br>
I would really like a similar level of "ease of use" when
creating emails that are sent between Thunderbird users, and
whether we think this is a good or bad thing, we should agree that
HTML is the platform, and CSS is the way to do the layout - why
stick to deprecated standards?<br>
<br>
So I ask, should we really put in word-specific artifacts in order
to render more truthfully on Microsoft's current Word/HTML engine
(and remember, there web pages that are authored with Word, and
they had some of the most atrocious, standards-defying HTML out
there, creating the impression that standards compliant <i>browsers
</i>were "broken", when in fact, the <i>standards</i> were) Sound
familiar?<br>
<br>
In my opinion, if the layout of a Thunderbird Email is impacted
when displayed on the outlook engine, because it doesn't know all
the CSS (yet) should we really spend precious development cycles
on rectifying this situation? Although Microsoft themselves have
pledged to "examine <i>(and one would hope, improve)</i> HTML and
CSS support based on customer feedback"; don't forget there are
other mail clients out there (Lotus Notes?) and CSS is an open /
documented standard. Not so sure about the rules of "Word"-HTML
rendering... not even sure if I would want to know, as they seem
to be in constant flux.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong I am not bashing Microsoft, and their E-Mail <i>Composition
</i>Module (read: Word2007+) runs rings around our Composer at the
moment, but the <i>markup </i>that it creates (at least when in
Word-HTML mode) and their <i>Rendering Engine</i> surely doesn't.
<br>
<br>
To give you an example, I had a user complaining about quote
levels being pushed in on both sides of the email to the point
were only a few words were visible. This is because outlook
dropped proper support for the<tt> <blockquote> </tt>tag
(or least you cannot configure Word out of the box to make this
less than 12 em or so). The question is, should Thunderbird
consequently drop (or replace) the <tt><blockquote></tt>
tag? Obviously, that would be a workaround (although it wouldn't
fix any emails that have already been written), but I would say
the time spent to develop this would be better spent by making it
easier to create a layout in Composer, and leave the fixing of
this particular annoyance to the owners of the defunct Software
(Outlook).<br>
<br>
Sure, we can stay within the confines of HTML attributes, like we
did in the nineties, and like we did in the last decade; but I
think this approach is short-sighted, when we have a pure-bred
HTML client at our hands which is capable of displaying HTML5 and
highly modernized web sites (yes, we do support opacity, yes, we
do support transitions!). Once you start editing the HTML source
in Thunderbird's composer, the possibilities are ridiculous. In a
good way.<br>
<br>
My point is, let's harness that power and show people what is
possible (while sticking to the HTML standards); the trick is to
build a good user interface to make that power easy to use; I
think this will take some vision and some braveness, but I do not
think for a minute that it will alienate any Outlooks users (I am
one myself, in my bread job, so I know what I am talking about);
but rather attract them. If you're stuck with outlook in you job,
then "Hey look what you can do with that, in your private email!"<br>
<br>
Just to close, there is one more example where Composer is
actually better than Outlook: you can drag images from the file
system in-line and very quickly create a narrative with
screenshots. This is something which at least outlook2007 (and
Winword) still hasn't managed. You still have to through the
painful insert > object or insert > file menus for this. <br>
<br>
I wish we had 5 usability features like that one, which would make
life easier for composing emails; this is where I would set the
focus. Examples would be<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>simple adding of shadows / borders to boxes / images /
paragraphs</li>
<li>automatic paragraph refactoring (get away from
<BR><BR><BR> for formatting, by replacing
them intelligently)</li>
<li>creation of Table of Contents (with anchor jumps within the
email)</li>
<li>easier color choices (remember last color without opening a
dialog, like in Word)</li>
<li>format painter</li>
<li>"Make all paragraphs / headers / lists look like this" - if
not with CSS classes, then by copying CSS inline styles</li>
<li>deprecate font and introduce @fontface support (not sure if
that one's already there)</li>
</ul>
<p>So I would like people to pick a few out of these before they
even think about making Composer's HTML output "more palatable
for outlook (WinWord)". Hope we can discuss this one in more
detail on the Thunderbird Summit. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
regards,<br>
Axel<br>
</p>
PS: Magnus I have cc'ed you, but your email address shows up
"red"? is it legit?<br>
<br>
PPS: Vincent - the users do not necessarily have to "Know" CSS to
be able to use it. We just build an intuitive interface that
encapsulates it, and they can use it. People also do not know
about the internal XML structure of modern word documents, yet
they manage to layout their images and paint their tables. I still
think this discussion is all about the UI, not about the
technology.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>