<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org"><tb-planning@mozilla.org></a>
<br>
<b>From: </b>"Kent James"<a 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=ISO-8859-1"
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 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>
</body>
</html>