Right. So maybe there should be different default options. (I can see the
argument that there shouldn't. But there don't seem to be answers here where
nobody loses. My preference is very strongly for shaking up the people who
use old Netscape mailers and don't understand what it is doing over those who
might suggest that composer is a good tool for producing web content. But I'm
not writing the code, so it isn't my decision).
cheers
Charles McCN
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't want our mail users to have to understand html in order
> to make basic use of rich text mail.
I think the main point of argument in this thread is the behavior of the
*Web page* editor, not that of the mail editor (even if they use the
same code).
Currently the user has to know the HTML details very well in order to
make proper *Web pages* in Editor. If Editor took care of doing the
Right Thing, the user wouldn't have to know all the HTML details.
--
Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
