Re[2]: RTF formatting
Hello Mark, Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 9:25:46 AM, you wrote: MP Hello Lawrence, MP Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote: LJ Whats the latest on the oft requested ability to format outgoing mail LJ messages? LJ It would be great to even just embolden, underline or italicize. MP Do you mean this, this and that? :-) MP I hope you can read it as it is intended... Yes, it appears correctly. TB! displays formatted text correctly, but I presumed that it was still operating in the What You Type Is What You Get mode. Were you able to do this with TB! or did you have to go to some external application? -- Best regards, Lawrencemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 3:32:26 AM, Sudip wrote in message mid:1063625593.20021030091726;ntc.net.np SP Anything that comes to me like that is not read at all ! g Sudip, your friends must be 'better-trained' than mine - they *will* insist on using stuff like Incredimail! joking -- Cheers, Anne Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Monday, October 28, 2002, 7:43:54 PM, Jonathan wrote in message mid:19517308906.20021028134354;certiflexdimension.com JA There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2 JA though, so RTF might just be pointless as HTML is probably supported JA in a lot more clients than RTF. If this is the case then I sure hope it'd not be set as the default option. In my view one of TB's great strengths is that it *doesn't* support HTML. It's one of my personal hates in e-mail and the main reason for my dumping OE as soon as I realised that other mail clients existed. For me HTML can stay on webpages :-) -- Cheers, Anne Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Monday, October 28, 2002, 8:13:04 PM, Mark wrote in message mid:6813457140.20021028121304;ahsoftware.net MW Most of the styled text messages I receive from people are simply MW the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred MW that the recipient see the message in 10-point Times. I don't see this MW as adding anything to functionality. I *do* see it adding to more MW complex communications, but I don't think that's the sense you had in MW mind. And even worse - images and animations on the background and - eeek! - even music like Incredimail does!!! :-( Anything that comes to me like that is stripped of all that stuff before I read it - I only ever see the plain text version, so all that 'creativity' is wasted on me! -- Cheers, Anne Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Monday, October 28, 2002, 9:40:54 PM, pmf wrote in message mid:11621038062.20021028164054;sprintmail.com p my guess is that TB v.2 will support sending emails in HTML, p so you'll have the features you want. I only hope it also has the p ability not only to render a text only version, but also to strip the p HTML completely, which will, of course, defeat your desire for me to see p the email as you think I should. :) Paula, you said what I think about this way better than I managed to do :-) -- Cheers, Anne Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:16:38 PM, Miguel wrote in message mid:1834822594.20021029001638;ermspain.com MAU Specially when TB already MAU includes a Rich Text Viewer? I wonder how many of the ones who have MAU participated in this thread do use the RTV. And if they do, why? :-) It does? I've not found this and I can't find mention of it in TB!'s help file - where does it lurk please? -- Cheers, Anne Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build A Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Bonjour Jonathan, May I enter this thread just to mention that : * HTML is not primarily a cosmetic format, but a semantic format : it is a subset of XML and thus carry inherent qualities that goes far above rtf. * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching to XML * to please everyone, HTML + CSS, by separating content and formating, is a very good way to add formating and still keep clean content. Of course, I mean correctly written HTML, not this thing called HTML exported from M$ Word where content and formating is mixed in a rat-bag ... I would like to add that I have seen examples where well done HTML is able to carry a message with a 10 time increase speed (in term of human understanding of the message) than pure text. Let's not go back in pre-Gutenberg times ! Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 20:57:12, vous écriviez : JA -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- JA Hash: SHA1 JA On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, Anne wrote... JA There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2 JA though, so RTF might just be pointless as HTML is probably JA supported in a lot more clients than RTF. If this is the case then I sure hope it'd not be set as the default option. In my view one of TB's great strengths is that it *doesn't* support HTML. It's one of my personal hates in e-mail and the main reason for my dumping OE as soon as I realised that other mail clients existed. For me HTML can stay on webpages :-) JA Trust me... I agree 100% with you there... and it is something that JA gets repeated every now and again on here when new users first start JA using TB trying to find out if they can send HTML. The only time I JA think I have ever found a 'need' for even RTF in emails is when I'm JA working with code, and examples, it sometimes makes referencing a JA little easier, just like you see in may howto books such as O'Reily's JA for example. JA - -- JA Jonathan Angliss JA ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) JA -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- JA Version: 6.5.8ckt JA iQA/AwUBPb7oHSuD6BT4/R9zEQLBBwCdEYTIHBc/fNq/GZuM5qV+ONOhDJAAoOpO JA bdW2gDWvh+sfcO7JvkeDk+oO JA =NruH JA -END PGP SIGNATURE- JA JA Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: JA http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html -- Cordialement, Françoismailto:fpti;transvie.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Bonjour Roelof, Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 22:58:47, vous écriviez : RO Hallo François, RO On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where RO I live), you wrote: FP * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching FP to XML RO Why are you both bashing Microsoft and stating that they're the RO standard everyone should adhere too? RO Do you consider plain text a thing of the past too, since Microsoft RO has switched to Word? RO BTW Who invented XML? XML is derivated from SGML and was developped by W3C (w3c.org) -- Cordialement, Françoismailto:fpti;transvie.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Bonjour Roelof, Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 22:58:47, vous écriviez : RO Hallo François, RO On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where RO I live), you wrote: FP * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching FP to XML RO Why are you both bashing Microsoft and stating that they're the RO standard everyone should adhere too? Don't undersqtand what you mean. RO Do you consider plain text a thing of the past too, since Microsoft RO has switched to Word? Microsoft invented rtf and is leaving it now, in profit of XML. So it is a thing of the past. As far as I know, plain text as not been invented by M$, so whatever M$ is doing regarding it doesn't make a thing of the past of it. RO BTW Who invented XML? Answered. I have no stock-option at w3c. I have used increasingly XML for 3 years now in many kind of projects (from paper print to web) and believe it is a pivotal language that solves not any but a great deal of problems attached to older languages. Among them is use of UTF-8 that would avoid many troubles in e-mail with foreign accents. -- Cordialement, Françoismailto:fpti;transvie.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Roelof- Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 1:58:47 PM, you wrote: RO Why are you both bashing Microsoft and stating that they're the RO standard everyone should adhere too? Now, now, Roelof...just because M$ is switching over to xml doesn't mean that it's a M$ standard. RTF *is* becoming a thing of the past, being replaced by HTML in its various forms on the web. XML is getting to be the standard for data interchange in just about every place where data gets exchanged. IMO that's the only reason that M$ is moving in that direction. XML was developed by the World Wide Web Consortium, www.w3.org, who, since they're not in the business or developing software, have neither an axe to grind nor a product to push. You can count on M$ to do their usual embrace and extend stuff to coopt XML, but it's an open standard. -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Pete Milne wrote in mid:92276533584.20021028124303;milneweb.com: JN from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold? PM Isn't that better served by Word or such? Send it as an attached file. Pete, Sometimes an attached file is fine, and the current design of TB! doesn't leave any choice other than an attached file or the layout possibilities inherent in a fixed caret (sp?) editor. But bandwidth would be conserved, speed would be increased, and recipient's attachment rules would be irrelevant if the program itself allowed enriched text. -- JN Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in mid:19517308906.20021028134354;certiflexdimension.com: JA Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? Yes. -- JN Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Mark, On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in mid:6813457140.20021028121304;ahsoftware.net: MW There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point MW that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that MW often simple text can get the point across much better than visual MW crutches. I am unaware of writers from other centuries discoursing about the relative merits of textual attributes to convey meaning in electronic media. The twentieth century, however, has produced many reports which indicate (as of the last time I waded in) that text formatting and text attributes convey meaning, and that they convey more meaning in a short span of time than does plain text without layout or attributes. MW * Actually text supports bullet points quite well. MW * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or quote them. If MW necessary, I can even SHOUT. I don't disagree with that. My email, using TB!, frequently uses those devices, as well as the indented paragraphs that TB! makes so easy. The only problems with those are that they are not standard and that they do not look professional. When I need more than TB! can provide, I usually do something in my word processor and then attach a PDF, so it looks the way I want, and is even on the electronic version of my letterhead. But should that really be necessary? A good email program, I would argue, is something that not only enables transmission over the Internet but also enables the medium of the message, within reasonable limits. It the the scope of those reasonable limits that I'm addressing. MW Most of the styled text messages I receive from people are simply MW the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred MW that the recipient see the message in 10-point Times. Well, although that's not really my experience, I don't think there's any harm in seeing a communication that looks the way the sender intended. To the contrary, I would say that, at this stage in our culture, if you are seeing a communication, in a visual media, that does not look the way the sender intended, then you are not seeing the sender's message. McLuhan, et al. MW There's also the slippery slope issue - where would you draw the MW line? Why stop at bullets, italics, underlines, and bold? What about MW strikeouts? What about color? Pretty soon you will find yourself MW implementing HTML just to have tags to support all the different MW styles you want to include. There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree that HTML is not the way to go. As for the decisions on how much enrichment to provide, I guess it's a functionality analysis, how much would be beneficial for the users and the product. I think that tables, bold, underlining and italics would be a sensible package, in that it would not only be very functional but also be set of attributes that generally go together (except for tables). I think color and size variations, and other fancy fonts, are all things that could be reserved for attachments if necessary; but others might have their own views. The fact that a decision or cutoff would be necessary, though, seems like a poor reason not to undertake the effort. -- JN Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in mid:6020249812.20021028143255;certiflexdimension.com: JA I've seen some people specifying fonts that look 'cool' on their JA computer, but just didn't have the same desired affect on mine. I agree. That's one reason to restrict any changes to a limited set of font enrichments. Most (all?) systems will properly render attributes like bold, underlines, and italics; maybe tables, too, though I'm not sure about that. -- JN Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Richard- Monday, October 28, 2002, 2:03:29 PM, you wrote: RW Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* would RW actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy needed, just RW the capability to have bold, italic etc as my newsreader Ameol already RW does. Ah... so nothing else would be transmitted, but the email client would simply interpret the received text if the proper hints were present... that's something quite different from RTF. Maybe I misunderstood the original intent here. I'm not opposed to this idea, but I'd demand the ability to turn it off on my end (and I would). -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
Hello Richard, Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote: MW * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or quote them. MW If necessary, I can even SHOUT. RW Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* RW would actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy RW needed, just the capability to have bold, italic etc as my RW newsreader Ameol already does. And that's one of the ways Ameol - which I use too - /does/ score over The Bat! It's a small feature, but one I find very valuable. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Best regards, myobmailto:myob;btinternet.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: RTF
On Mon, 28-Oct-2002 17:54 [GMT-0500] myob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Richard, Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote: * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or quote them. If necessary, I can even SHOUT. Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* would actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy needed, just the capability to have bold, italic etc as my newsreader Ameol already does. And that's one of the ways Ameol - which I use too - /does/ score over The Bat! It's a small feature, but one I find very valuable. As does *Outlook Express* with /OE-QuoteFix/ ;-) I thought _theBat_ did this too (I'm not using it yet). From this conversation I gather it does *NOT* ? Regards ... Alec -- - Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: RTF
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Allie C Martin wrote in mid:122307102960.20021028211108;landscreek.net: JN I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated JN the subject. I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a JN MS format. What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally JN referred to as enriched text, and you paraphrased it well in JN the excerpt above. I've always thought that this would have been a better way to go than HTML as a means for text enrichment. However, besides sending an attachment, HTML seems to have taken off as the only widely supported means to convey text formatting that goes beyond that of being simple plain text. Allie, I wonder if the reason is commercial or technical. That is, has HTML become so popular because it offers the sellers of the world more billboard space, or is it that there is no alternative technique which displays reliably on different systems. If an alternative, albeit limited, formatting technique exists, I'll vote for it over HTML in my email. (My template didn't pick up your initials for this reply, and your headers don't indicate what you're using: TB! or not TB!, that is the question.) -- JN Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
