[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Lennart Borgman
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 11:56:09 +0200

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 01:20:00 +0200 Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> wrote:
> LB> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 16:18:03 +0200 Lennart Borgman <address@hidden> wrote:
> LB> Which commonly used mail clients (outside of Emacs) does not support html 
> today?
>>> HTML and XML are a complex framework of standards and I'm willing to bet
>>> very few mail clients support them fully or need to.
> LB> How much? ;-)
> LB> I believe most mail clients uses HTML libraries that are available for
> LB> developers. (Free and non-free.)
> I don't think the full extent of the nightmarish HTML standards (there
> are several) needs to be discussed, though you should look at them if
> only for your amusement.  It's just hard to support HTML fully in a MUA
> without turning it into a web browser.

If you use the same HTML libraries as the web browser it is just as
hard as in a web browser.

> (Microsoft Outlook, for instance, has terrible HTML support for several
> releases that are still commonly used.  Many CSS attributes just don't
> work in the preview pane.  This is relevant because it's hard to fontify
> code reliably in the Outlook preview pane without explictly stating the
> font color and style for each span.  This was my experience 4 years
> ago.)

IE did not follow standards very good at that time.

> But as I said already, we're really talking about MIME attachments and
> how the org-mode ad-hoc markup compares to them, not HTML.  My comment
> was tangential.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]