Re[2]: RTF formatting

2003-07-08 Thread Lawrence Johnson
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-30 Thread Anne
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,

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Anne
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.

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Anne
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Anne
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Anne
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Franois PASCAL
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Franois PASCAL
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Franois PASCAL
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-29 Thread Mark Wieder
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Joseph N.
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Joseph N.
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:

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Joseph N.
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Joseph N.
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Mark Wieder
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

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread myob
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

Re: Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Alec Burgess
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*

Re[2]: RTF

2002-10-28 Thread Joseph N.
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