Hello Feli, On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:25:57 +0100 GMT (09/Feb/10, 16:25 PM +0700 GMT), Feli Wilcke wrote:
PVN>>> Do you want TB to use IE to render HTML like so many others? TF>> Are we discussing again whether or not TB! should display HTML? FW> I agree with you that TB should display HTML. But then the HTML code FW> has to be written following the W3C standards. Many pages that don't FW> display as they should contain HTML errors. Hm. Being a mere user, I have no idea about HTML errors. TF>> And I want HTML mails to be displayed correctly, no excuses. FW> Well, I understand the request but: if you order a cocktail in a bar FW> and you get something that doesn't follow the recipe, who would you FW> blame, the recipe or the bartender? The same cocktail from the same bartender tastes good in the pool (browser) but awfull in the glass it was delivered in (email client, as it was an email). As it is the same cocktail prepared by the same bartender, I blame the vessel it was delivered in. Wine from a plastic cup tastes different from wine in a proper wine glass. Don't blame the wine for the awfull taste in the plastic cup. - Are we now done with metaphors? ;-) FW> I'm pretty sure that there will always be webpages and HTML messages FW> that don't show up properly as long as there is a large number of FW> rendering engines. On the other hand, a tolerant rendering has always FW> the risk of security issues. Aha, I wasn't aware of this. TF>> For me as a user, it is transparent whether they use the IE TF>> engine. They chose not to, and that is OK with me. FW> The problem with rendering is that there are still web programmers who FW> optimize their code for IE 7 or even IE6. Nearly all actual browsers have FW> problems displaying such pages. Knowing that it makes sense that FW> windows asks me during updates for IE8 if I want to install also the FW> compatibility mode for older IE versions. This is educational, albeit starting to become off-topic. FW> I'm not a web programmer but I use XML very often. Looking at the FW> source code of your example shows an incorrect DOCTYPE statement. So, FW> perhaps this is the root of the unsatisfying display of the HTML? Maybe, thanks for pointing it out. So my webbrowser is tolerant to this mistake, but TB! is not. If you can point me to that mistake, I want to try and edit the mail in a text editor and see whether it displays correctly after fixing. I do think this is on-topic, as it is a test concerning the HTML rendering engine in TB!. If there are objections against testing this on the list, I will be happy to do this by PM. TF>> They reported that they have improved something in this beta TF>> version, and I tested and found a problem. Why are you hitting me TF>> up for testing a beta version for the apparently fixed problem? FW> You shouldn't be hit but one of the programmers should explain why FW> this message doesn't display properly in TB. I'd like to know. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 4.2.33.7 Beta under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 4.2.35.1 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
