After reviewing CTM's web site I can't find any reference to HTML at all. My comments relate to not following Mac standards, and confusing operation. They have nothing to do with "as advertised", but with the program I am using.
- Winston >I am not going to big into this thread, sorry. > >but one thing I really would like to get understood is that I am saying >"as advertised" - you are obviously glancing constantly over this point >I am making. > >for me it's end of the discussion here, just not worth the effort, and >by that I mean no offense to you or anybody else who feels it important >to discuss, it's just not important enough to me. > >---marlyse > > >------------ former message(s) quotes: ------------- > > >>I think you just proved my point that the HTML printing problem is a bug. >> >>>a bug is something which is said to be functional in a certain way and >>>it is not as advertised >> >>Right. And PowerMail can print HTML email, just not the way it is >>supposed to work on a Mac. Any Mac program which cannot print using >>standard Mac commands, and in fact prints incorrectly using standard >>procedure, has a bug in it. I expect EVERY Mac program to use Apple's >>standard setup for printing. So do most Mac users. >> >>PowerMail leaves printing activated when in fact it does not work. >>That's a bug, not a feature. >> >>- Winston >> >>>as this is actually a funny thread .... yes, us discussing the fact if >>>it's a bug or feature is somewhat funny because the person who want's it >>>printed in the end probably does not care how it is called in the first >>>place, but on the other hand, 2 people calling something a bug when it's >>>not really one and somewhat referring to my earlier comment without >>>quoting my exact statement, well this tickles me enough as to respond >>>anyways : >>> >>>simple reason why such html would print white is that PM basically >>>renders the html as a curtsey for people who can't live without the >>>pictures and colorful fonts and whatnots and who want to see the html >>>rendered page - but that is all that it does. I see the html stuff as an >>>attachment or a skin to the email and for this reason it will not print >>>or not show in a reply. I've heard a lot of people state the fact about >>>a white mail when trying to reply to an html message, well and this is >>>the same issue when printing, and thus it is not actually a loss of user >>>data, it is just trying to use PM in a way it was never designed for. >>>PowerMail IS a power mail application but it is NOT an HTML handler and >>>never said to be. this is how I understand the working of it, but then >>>again, i do not use html rendering and I never have to print it and if I >>>would I just would put it to be viewed in the browser and then print it >>>from there.. >>> >>>and to be clear what MY point of bug versus feature was, here again : >>> >>>a bug is something which is said to be functional in a certain way and >>>it is not as advertised. a missing feature is some behavior somebody >>>would LIKE to see or THINKS it should be in an application but which is >>>not (yet) at a current point in time. >>> >>>I do agree though with the fact that it would be wise to implement a >>>dialog box as Bruce suggested :-) >>> >>>maybe I am getting old or maybe I am getting just tired of the old same >>>old same "why is this not an html email application"... because it's not >>>and never has been and I just feel if that is what people want to begin >>>with, well why do they even get powermail in the first place and don't >>>just stick with apple's Mail or any other html mail application? >>> >>>guess I AM getting old AND I am tired. >>> >>>---marlyse >>> >>> >>>------------ former message(s) quotes: ------------- >>> >>> >>>>Just my 2 cents... >>>> If I'm looking an a email and tell it to print, and the printer produces >>>>a blank page (as reported by Winston ) that's a bug. >>>> >>>> Now if I were to print and be greeted with "Sorry that's and HTML email >>>>and we can't/don't print those, you'll have to print from a browser." >>>>That's a "feature." >>>> >>>> I would call the behavior as described by Winston a "loss of user data" >>>>bug and mark it serious if it were my product. >>>> >>>>All that having been said, this is not a problem I've usually seen. >>>>Guess I don't print much HTML. >>>> >>>>Bruce >>>>-- >>>>Bruce Barrett See my website at: http://www.brucebarrett.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
