Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812638 Bug 812638 - Thunderbird is inserting random and incorrect font size=3 tags in the middle of words throughout my email message. (edit) I know about that bug, but I think the discussion is wandering off into a let's replace the editor megaproject instead of making sure this bug is fixed before the next release. That is (I wrote before) what I sometimes find disturbing. People work on the code, that is fine. They sometimes break things, that can happen. But then it should be their responsability to fix what they have broken and introduce the fix in the release process as soon as possible, not to fix it in the trunk and wait two more major releases before it is finally fixed for the end-users, and certainly not going off into a major redevelopment program that may take years to finish while leaving the existing users fighting the problems. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip TAYLOR wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. Philip Taylor Amen, Philip! -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote: I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812638 Bug 812638 - Thunderbird is inserting random and incorrect font size=3 tags in the middle of words throughout my email message. (edit) I know about that bug, but I think the discussion is wandering off into a let's replace the editor megaproject instead of making sure this bug is fixed before the next release. That is (I wrote before) what I sometimes find disturbing. People work on the code, that is fine. They sometimes break things, that can happen. But then it should be their responsability to fix what they have broken and introduce the fix in the release process as soon as possible, not to fix it in the trunk and wait two more major releases before it is finally fixed for the end-users, and certainly not going off into a major redevelopment program that may take years to finish while leaving the existing users fighting the problems. I sometimes wonder if Block Diagrams are used much when programming now-a-days!! If they were, and were kept accurate, the programmers should be able to see, if they make a change in one block to suit a particular function, which other functions might also be effected!! -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/19/12 5:09 PM, Ed Mullen wrote: Rob wrote: David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. This is not realistic in today's world when using the program in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML. We even have HTML signatures. Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? Read my http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCII_mail.html. You will see from where I come. Then read my http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. You describe a world where fluff is more important than information. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. That means mail /can/ include markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. But it does not have to. As this message demonstrates. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. And how many of those business, and what fraction of that software, addresses the vital issue of accessibility ? When I send an e-mail, there is not a blind computer user on this planet who does not have access to its contents, if it reaches him or her. 90+% of the HTML e-mails I receive are completely inaccessible to blind people : no alt attributes, no longdescs, no accommodation whatsoever to those who do not have sight. That world is not for me. Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. You describe a world where fluff is more important than information. But that is the real world. You can deny that, but it only describes your (lack of) relation with the real world, not the actual situation in the real world. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Rob wrote: The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. That means mail /can/ include markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. But it does not have to. As this message demonstrates. What does this message demonstrate? I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. And how many of those business, and what fraction of that software, addresses the vital issue of accessibility ? When I send an e-mail, there is not a blind computer user on this planet who does not have access to its contents, if it reaches him or her. 90+% of the HTML e-mails I receive are completely inaccessible to blind people : no alt attributes, no longdescs, no accommodation whatsoever to those who do not have sight. That world is not for me. We have a blind user in the company. He uses Seamonkey with special software that reads the contents of his mails using a voice synthesizer. It is kind of a pain because the software must be told after every Seamonkey release that Seamonkey is really Firefox, but aside from that it works OK. There really is no performance difference between HTML and text mail while doing this text to speech. But he keeps insisting that the support for mainstream software like Internet Explorer, Outlook and Adobe Reader (we use an alternative PDF reader as well) is much much better than for the software we have. It appears the accessability software industry focusses heavily on mainstream software and less on opensource products. That is more of an issue than the mail being HTML or text. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: What does this message demonstrate? That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. It appears the accessability software industry focusses heavily on mainstream software and less on opensource products. That is more of an issue than the mail being HTML or text. No accessibility software in the world will help him all the while that e-mail authors believe that presenting text as image, with no or minimal ALT information, is communicating, which is what e-mail is (or should be) all about. I opened my junk e-mail folder and took the very first entry. The sighted user will see the contents of http://www.videoprint.cl/news/feb12/videoprint.jpg and read Videoprint.cl (Tel) 02 2253413 Bruno Mars La fusion definitiva entre el video y la publicacion impresa. The blind user will be presented with the contents of the ALT attribute (no LONGDESC present) and be told videoprint.cl. This is the relevant part of the e-mail : h2 style=LINE-HEIGHT: 31px; FONT-FAMILY: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 4px; COLOR: #232020; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 31px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pximg onmouseover= style=WIDTH: 550px;=20 HEIGHT: 435px onmouseoutonmousedown= height=435 alt=videoprint.cl hspace=0 src=http://www.videoprint.cl/news/feb12/videoprint.jpg; width=550 border=0/h2 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Rob wrote: What does this message demonstrate? That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. But I never denied that! What I claim is that it requires HTML mail to transmit e-mail messages as today's users want to see them. And I am thankful that HTML made its way into mail, because if that wouldn't have happened then all marked-up mail would now be in Microsoft Rich Text or even Microsoft Word document format. After all, that is what Microsofts entry into the e-mail market produced by default until others pushed HTML just in time. I know that there exist a group that is definately against all mail formatting and especially against HTML in mail, and isist that text mail is good enough, but I think the majority of them are autists. It appears the accessability software industry focusses heavily on mainstream software and less on opensource products. That is more of an issue than the mail being HTML or text. No accessibility software in the world will help him all the while that e-mail authors believe that presenting text as image, with no or minimal ALT information, is communicating, which is what e-mail is (or should be) all about. What you discuss is spam. Normal HTML e-mail is not in that format, it uses plain text with HTML markup tags. With some mailers there are more tags then useful text, but that is not something that bothers the end-user. Seamonkey was fine until a year ago, then the bad things started happening. This is not the fault of HTML mail, it is the fault of the developers. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Rob wrote: The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. That means mail /can/ include markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. But it does not have to. As this message demonstrates. What does this message demonstrate? It deomonstrates that meaningful information can indeed be communicated without HTML formatting. Not something that is interesting to demonstrate. What needs to be demonstrated is that people can communicate in business style, with company letterhead and logo, in text with markup. That is what businesses want or need. It appears the accessability software industry focusses heavily on mainstream software and less on opensource products. That is more of an issue than the mail being HTML or text. Yes, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey do a relatively good job in composing valid HTML for E-mail. As this thread reveals, however, the HTML is not totally valid. Too often, it contains tag soup. It is caused by carelessness of the developers. It was okay until people made changes and did not do full testing. Now it is difficult to find the person who did this and ask him to fix or undo the changes, and other people start uttering things like let's rip out the editor and start anew. Not very constructive. Other E-mail applications are not as good in creating valid HTML. Fortunately that is not really what the screen readers are looking for. They really read what is shown on the screen, they don't particularly care how it lands there (from a Word document, a text mail or a HTML mail). The exception is the case where the program does all the rendering in internal code and just outputs a pixel map. Then the screen reader has a more difficult job. But that is mainly determined by the program not by the mail format (the exception being those mails that send the text as an image, but they normally are not worth reading anyway). ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip TAYLOR wrote, On 20/12/2012 11:57: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. Philip Taylor I suppose that you never use SM to look on the web for infos ... or you look ONLY this kind of pages: html head titleInformation page (to save bandwidth)/title /head body pre This is only pure text infos This is only pure text infos This is only pure text infos /pre /body /html ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross wrote: On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. You describe a world where fluff is more important than information. Nonsense. You are living in an outdated world. HTML email has been the norm since the early to mid 90s. I don't care if you choose to live that way, but the vast majority of us do not. -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip TAYLOR wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. Philip Taylor And with my 15Mbps download connection??? Who cares? C'mon. It's 2012, almost 2013. Get real. -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. +1 -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. You describe a world where fluff is more important than information. But that is the real world. You can deny that, but it only describes your (lack of) relation with the real world, not the actual situation in the real world. +1 -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Philip TAYLOR wrote: Rob wrote: The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. That means mail /can/ include markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. But it does not have to. As this message demonstrates. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. And how many of those business, and what fraction of that software, addresses the vital issue of accessibility ? When I send an e-mail, there is not a blind computer user on this planet who does not have access to its contents, if it reaches him or her. 90+% of the HTML e-mails I receive are completely inaccessible to blind people : no alt attributes, no longdescs, no accommodation whatsoever to those who do not have sight. That world is not for me. Philip Taylor How many blind people are you sending email to, Philip? -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist, but a person who drives a race car not called a racist? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross wrote: On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Rob wrote: The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. That means mail /can/ include markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc. But it does not have to. As this message demonstrates. What does this message demonstrate? It deomonstrates that meaningful information can indeed be communicated without HTML formatting. That is NOT what this is about. -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ When God is amazed, does he say: Oh my Me!? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross wrote: On 12/19/12 5:09 PM, Ed Mullen wrote: Rob wrote: David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. This is not realistic in today's world when using the program in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML. We even have HTML signatures. Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? Read my http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCII_mail.html. You will see from where I come. Then read my http://www.rossde.com/internet/ASCIIvsHTML.html. David, I respect most of your posts but I did read both of your URLs and find them outdated and anachronistic. MOST email sent today is HTML. You can hew to text only if you like but you are out of date. As I said, all email (not newsgroup posts) I have sent since the early 90s have been HTML. That's company and personal. Also, most of the arguments about plain text as a preferred format hinge on outdated bandwidth issues that haven't existed in a decade or more. Sure, a few people are living in the outer reaches and are using dial-up. But, really? How many? Damned few. Join the second decade of the new millenium. Geez. HTML email has become a de-facto standard for corporate email. Look around. -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ When God is amazed, does he say: Oh my Me!? ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Ed Mullen wrote: Philip TAYLOR wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. Philip Taylor And with my 15Mbps download connection??? Who cares? C'mon. It's 2012, almost 2013. Get real. Says more about you than anything else, Ed!! A large portion of web users are no where near capable of 15Mbps speeds!! -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Ed Mullen wrote: Snip HTML email has become a de-facto standard for corporate email. Look around. and we all know the the corporate world can do no wrong!! . *NOT* -- Daniel ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/19/2012 11:59 AM, David E. Ross wrote: On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote: ... (I know I should join the development team instead of criticize, however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this project is simply too large for me. I tried finding the location of a bug before, but even knowing what I was looking for I could not locate the sourcefile where the function that I was looking for was being performed...) However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. I agree. However, I think that this is better discussed in another thread and/or mozilla.general... The responses to your post have absolutely *nothing* to do with the original OP's issue. In this case, SeaMonkey's 'Shift+k' works well. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote: Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote: Ed Mullen wrote: Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you., not 2500. The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes. Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes. People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter. That means mail includes mark-up, letterhead, vcard-like signatures, etc. I have no problem if you want to aleniate yourself from that world, but it is the world that businesses and software operates in. You describe a world where fluff is more important than information. But that is the real world. You can deny that, but it only describes your (lack of) relation with the real world, not the actual situation in the real world. I fully agree with you that in today's world fluff is more important than information. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/20/12 6:30 PM, NoOp wrote: On 12/19/2012 11:59 AM, David E. Ross wrote: On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote: ... (I know I should join the development team instead of criticize, however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this project is simply too large for me. I tried finding the location of a bug before, but even knowing what I was looking for I could not locate the sourcefile where the function that I was looking for was being performed...) However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. I agree. However, I think that this is better discussed in another thread and/or mozilla.general... The responses to your post have absolutely *nothing* to do with the original OP's issue. In this case, SeaMonkey's 'Shift+k' works well. I agree that the discussion has veered off the original topic. All I did was suggest the work-around of using ASCII-formatted messages. I might have added until the bug is fixed. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. What makes it even worse is that stupid change (made a couple of versions before) to pretty-print the outgoing HTML. It is indented based on the tag level, so each level of font indents it more. There is absolutely no point in doing that, it only wastes space and bandwidth for no purpose. The combined result is HTML crap that even Microsoft would be ashamed of. I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. What makes it even worse is that stupid change (made a couple of versions before) to pretty-print the outgoing HTML. It is indented based on the tag level, so each level of font indents it more. There is absolutely no point in doing that, it only wastes space and bandwidth for no purpose. The combined result is HTML crap that even Microsoft would be ashamed of. I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. Is this what you're after? editor.prettyprint -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ UnHallmark Card: Happy birthday! You look great for your age. Almost Lifelike! ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/19/12 7:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. What makes it even worse is that stupid change (made a couple of versions before) to pretty-print the outgoing HTML. It is indented based on the tag level, so each level of font indents it more. There is absolutely no point in doing that, it only wastes space and bandwidth for no purpose. The combined result is HTML crap that even Microsoft would be ashamed of. I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. Have you submitted a bug report at bugzill.mozilla.org? If so, what is the bug number? -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. Sounds related to this bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=756984 snip -- Fedora 17 (64-bit) KDE 4.9.2 Thunderbird Release Approximately 400 billion gallons of water are used worldwide per day. One inch of rain falling on one acre of land is equal to roughly 27,154 gallons of water. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: On 12/19/12 7:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. What makes it even worse is that stupid change (made a couple of versions before) to pretty-print the outgoing HTML. It is indented based on the tag level, so each level of font indents it more. There is absolutely no point in doing that, it only wastes space and bandwidth for no purpose. The combined result is HTML crap that even Microsoft would be ashamed of. I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. Have you submitted a bug report at bugzill.mozilla.org? If so, what is the bug number? I did not submit the report, the bug 812638 is the same thing but for Thunderbird. Unfortunately it looks like people want to replace the entire editor to fix this. That may take years. And what do we do in the meantime? (it worked OK one or two versions ago, it should be possible to fix it) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. Sounds related to this bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=756984 No, that is something else. I think 812638 is closer. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote: WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. Sounds related to this bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=756984 No, that is something else. I think 812638 is closer. You may be correct. Both are Core, Editor bugs. -- Fedora 17 (64-bit) KDE 4.9.2 Thunderbird Release Approximately 400 billion gallons of water are used worldwide per day. One inch of rain falling on one acre of land is equal to roughly 27,154 gallons of water. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Ed Mullen e...@mungeedmullen.net wrote: Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. What makes it even worse is that stupid change (made a couple of versions before) to pretty-print the outgoing HTML. It is indented based on the tag level, so each level of font indents it more. There is absolutely no point in doing that, it only wastes space and bandwidth for no purpose. The combined result is HTML crap that even Microsoft would be ashamed of. I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. Is this what you're after? editor.prettyprint Yes something like that, but the above pref works in the editor (composer). I need a similar pref that affects the mail composition in the same way that the above pref affects the composer. (I remember I tested this before and now tested it again on 2.14.1 but it really only affects the composer) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote: On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote: WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. Sounds related to this bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=756984 No, that is something else. I think 812638 is closer. You may be correct. Both are Core, Editor bugs. I hope it will be fixed quickly. Sometimes I hate the fact that we have to update because of security notices and then find that arbitrary changes have been made that introduce problems that never existed before (or have existed before and then been fixed). I understand that where there is development there always will be mistakes, but sometimes it looks like there is an ongoing train of development rushing forward without checking what blows off at the back. Fixing bugs introduced in a new version should be done before continuing into yet another new one. (I know I should join the development team instead of criticize, however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this project is simply too large for me. I tried finding the location of a bug before, but even knowing what I was looking for I could not locate the sourcefile where the function that I was looking for was being performed...) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote: WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote: On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote: WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote: On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. Sounds related to this bug. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=756984 No, that is something else. I think 812638 is closer. You may be correct. Both are Core, Editor bugs. I hope it will be fixed quickly. Sometimes I hate the fact that we have to update because of security notices and then find that arbitrary changes have been made that introduce problems that never existed before (or have existed before and then been fixed). I understand that where there is development there always will be mistakes, but sometimes it looks like there is an ongoing train of development rushing forward without checking what blows off at the back. Fixing bugs introduced in a new version should be done before continuing into yet another new one. (I know I should join the development team instead of criticize, however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this project is simply too large for me. I tried finding the location of a bug before, but even knowing what I was looking for I could not locate the sourcefile where the function that I was looking for was being performed...) However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. -- David E. Ross http://www.rossde.com/ Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation. © 1997 by David E. Ross ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. This is not realistic in today's world when using the program in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML. We even have HTML signatures. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
Rob wrote: David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote: However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only ASCII-formatted messages. This is not realistic in today's world when using the program in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML. We even have HTML signatures. Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you text-only people coming from? -- Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/ Harmony of aim, not identity of conclusion, is the secret of sympathetic life. - Ralph Waldo Emerson ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Nasty font tag bug in newish versions (maybe since 2.13)
On 19/12/2012 23:30, Rob wrote: I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has a nasty bug in the message composition mode. When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in the options for message composition (default is medium, set to small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nested font size=x /font tags in the message. Many more than are required. It is not clear to me when it inserts a new one, maybe after backspacing or similar. I saw messages with 20 or more nested font tags. What makes it even worse is that stupid change (made a couple of versions before) to pretty-print the outgoing HTML. It is indented based on the tag level, so each level of font indents it more. There is absolutely no point in doing that, it only wastes space and bandwidth for no purpose. The combined result is HTML crap that even Microsoft would be ashamed of. I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs. The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should be reverted or looked at. I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temporarily to work around the issues it causes. But I know of no way to turn off the pretty-printing. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812638 Bug 812638 - Thunderbird is inserting random and incorrect font size=3 tags in the middle of words throughout my email message. (edit) Phil -- Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
