It seems to me that there is no argument that the HTML handling of TB has great scope for improvement. On this thread alone, several persons have reported problems, and the most that anyone has said about TB HTML handling is that it is "sufficient" (for him). No one has said that the handling of HTML is "good", much less "great".
Look, I receive electronic plane tickets that I even hesitate to read in TB. I certainly would never print them from TB. Yes, there is a workaround. I can open them in my Web browser and then read them and print them from there. But when I get those same plane tickets on my WinMo phone, they look much better in Outlook. It's not just missing embedded graphics here. Font sizes and font weights are distorted in TB. Table borders get lost in TB. Graphics and hypertext that are hidden in the browser appear as empty boxes and indecipherable symbols in TB. So I think we can agree to disagree on the amount of HTML support that is required by TB. But, as I see it, HTML-based email is a fact of life. Everyone gets some. And TB could provide a lot better support for HTML. Yes, I know that this has been discussed many times over the years. I know - and respect - the preference of this community for plain-text email. I share that preference. But I also recognize that, my preference aside, I do receive important HTML mail. And I get frustrated by the fact that TB leaves me confused and uncertain when viewing HTML documents that I must rely on. -- jaywalker Windows XP Pro SP3 The Bat! Pro 4.2.36.4 OTFE ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 4.2.33.9 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
