RE: [WSG] Outlook 2010
We have a problem! Outlook 2010, according to Campaign Monitor [1], is going to continue to use the crippled MS Word layout engine. They adopted this as the status quo for Outlook 2007 and promptly set rich email with CSS, etc., back a number of years, and are showing no great sign of diverging from this path. However, there is hope! Campaign Monitor have started a website, http://fixoutlook.org/ , in conjunction with their Email Standards Project [2] -- essentially a standards advocacy website. They need your support now more than ever. We could also point out some of those other annoying things in current versions that also need to be fixed!!! 1. WHY do I have to stuff around with regedit to be able to do view source in current versions of Outlook? ...being able to view the raw source email (not just headers) is a MUST HAVE for me! .. this should be a standard feature in any email client! 2. why must it force me to use curly quotes and other non-ASCII chars? This is VERY annoying - it insists on replacing ascii quotes with windows curly quotes ... I normally would rather keep them as ASCII quotes !!! ... nor do I want any of my other text to be automatically replaced by non-ASCII chars. (I'm starting to see other email clients copying this behavior not good at all! - We've all seen what happens when people start copying/pasting from those emails into forms on websites! . . . and there are no good tools to fix the resulting mishmash of charsets!) 3. don't force people to use html if they are replying to an email ... I am more likely to just want plain text! (please make plain text options easier to find! - plain text *should* be the default anyway!) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Joshua Street josh.str...@gmail.comwrote: We have a problem! Outlook 2010, according to Campaign Monitor [1], is going to continue to use the crippled MS Word layout engine. FixOutlook.org aims to collate the community's discontent with this decision using Twitter to change Microsoft's policy decision on this one before it's too late and we're stuck with yet another five-ten years of inferior email authoring! This is so stupid - the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! You can't have your cake and eat it too... - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: This is so stupid - the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! You can't have your cake and eat it too... You seem very sure of yourself on this one, but wasn't Office 2007 launched at the same time as Windows Vista which included IE7 at that time? Also, if an developer wants to use embedded IE within their application they can bundle the version they'd like to use. Why is Microsoft any different? I agree with you that Microsoft not being allowed to package their own browser with their operating system is a farce, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's driven their decision to switch to using Word as the rendering engine for Outlook. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
Nathan, I think you are slightly missing the point, I for one don't care too hoots if microsoft uses its own rendering engine or not. All I care is that they use one that works and I think this is the main point of the campaign. I pretty much left web design a few years back because I hated the lack of cross-browser compatibility, but the issues with email clients are even worse - some don't support background images, or even css. Andy -- a...@universalsprout.com Andrew Stewart London :: +44(0)7900 245 789 Sydney :: +61(0)416 607 113 www.universalsprout.com :: websites that sprout On 24 Jun 2009, at 22:57, Nathan de Vries wrote: On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: This is so stupid - the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! You can't have your cake and eat it too... You seem very sure of yourself on this one, but wasn't Office 2007 launched at the same time as Windows Vista which included IE7 at that time? Also, if an developer wants to use embedded IE within their application they can bundle the version they'd like to use. Why is Microsoft any different? I agree with you that Microsoft not being allowed to package their own browser with their operating system is a farce, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's driven their decision to switch to using Word as the rendering engine for Outlook. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons
Hi Jens, Sorry for replying so late, just wondering if you found a solution? The only things I have found online have been to make .Net produce an input type=image / which isn't ideal (the image is in the HTML, not the CSS), or a Linkbutton to then format with CSS more easily. I believe that Linkbuttons don't work when Javascript is turned off, so they are not a good option either. I fear the only proper solution while using .Net is for the HTML that is produced to change! Cheers, Rachel -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Jens-Uwe Korff Sent: 19 June 2009 00:39 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons on an ASP.NET-driven site we'd like to use background images for flexible-width submit inputs. Due to the .NET limitation we cannot use the button tag and are stuck with the following syntax: input type=submit value=Button Text / Thank you for your inputs. However, we really cannot use the button element. I'll be looking into adding a wrapper to the input which appears to be the best solution as of now. Heavy Javascripting would complicate the build even further and I hope we can get around that option. Cheers, Jens The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On 24/06/2009, at 11:40 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote: I think you are slightly missing the point... You might want to re-read (or read) my email. I was responding to Matthew, who was implying that Microsoft's decision to use Word as the rendering engine was due to Opera's complaint to The European Commission and the subsequent fallout. I personally disagree with that justification, but regardless of why Microsoft chose to do what they did, I'm pretty sure that most people on this list who support web standards believe that it was a bad decision and should be rectified in future versions of Outlook. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Outlook 2010
Michael MD wroted: WHY do I have to stuff around with regedit to be able to do view source in current versions of Outlook? Can you pass on that trick? I would love to be able to view source... -- The generation that took acid to escape reality is now taking antacid to deal with reality http://blog.dwacon.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons
On Behalf Of Rachel Radford Sent: 24 June 2009 14:51 Subject: RE: [WSG] RE: Using background images on submit buttons I fear the only proper solution while using .Net is for the HTML that is produced to change! Rachel, have you had a look at the CSS control adapters (http://www.asp.net/CssAdapters/)? I'm not sure which controls are in there, but that seems to be the most popular way to produce (more) valid HTML from .Net. Chris This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] website fonts
I have been following this thread with interest. Some fonts are thicker than others. You have character spaceing. For example, Arial Narrow takes up less room than Arial and Arial black. I have come across some low vision individuals that only rquire thicker fonts and a little more spacing between the characters than normal.. Then their ar browser pixel differences. as far as I remember Internet Explorer defaults to a 12 point font and Firefox defaults to a 16 point font. Most people of all sight levels perfer a 14 to 16 pooinnt font. I am still trying how to get browsers default to a 16 point font and look the same in all browsers. Angus MacKinnon Keep On Trucking! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] website fonts
Angus MacKinnon related: Internet Explorer defaults to a 12 point font and Firefox defaults to a 16 point font. Of course, fonts are adjustable in the browser (with some exceptions for hard coded fonts) so a user's preferences may be an override in many cases. -- I made magic once. Now, the sofa is gone. http://blog.dwacon.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Outlook 2010
On 24/06/2009, at 9:58 PM, Matthew Pennell wrote: ...the reason that Outlook uses Word instead of a decent rendering engine is because of the same standards advocates complaining so much about IE6 being bundled with Windows! Microsoft have since responded to the campaign [1] and thrown this argument out the window. Instead, they're justifying their decision by outlining how easy it is for laypeople to create rich emails in Word. It's true that creating rich documents in Word is simple, but that simplicity comes at the cost of interoperability since the only tool capable of rendering Word-generated HTML is Word itself. It also ignores the fact that emails authored in tools other than Word will not render correctly in Word. In other words, Microsoft are effectively creating their own HTML- email standard, authorable and viewable in Microsoft tools only. Cheers, Nathan de Vries *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Rendering difference between Strict Transitional doctypes in FF, IE8 Safari
Heya, We've found a really strange issue with some CSS layout when serving a page with XHTML 1.0 Transitional vs. XHTML 1.1 (or XHTML 1.0 Strict), in Firefox 3, Safari IE8. The exact same behaviour is seen using the HTML 4.01 versions of the doctypes too. From what I've readhttp://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/, the transitional doctypes will force these browsers into almost standardshttps://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko%27s_%22Almost_Standards%22_Mode mode, but that should only effect the calculation of the height of table cells that contain just images, which is not the case here (all CSS layout). It only affects a few elements on the page (see links below) and is driving us mental. We need to serve this page as transitional as it uses a 3rd party service that requires an iframe. Anybody ever come across anything like this? Served with strict doctype screenshothttp://files.damianedwards.com/HTML401Strict.PNG Served with transitional doctype screenshothttp://files.damianedwards.com/HTML401Transitional.PNG Regards, Damian Edwards MSysDev (CSturt) Readify | Senior Consultant Microsoft MVPhttps://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Damian.Edwards: ASP/ASP.NET Head Office | Suite 408, Life.Labs Building | 190 Harbour Esplanade | Docklands | VIC 3008 | Australia M: 0448 545 868 | E: damian.edwa...@readify.netmailto:damian.edwa...@readify.net | C: damian.edwa...@readify.netsip:damian.edwa...@readify.net | W: www.readify.nethttp://www.readify.net/ [cid:image001.jpg@01C9F59A.ED216FD0]http://readify.net/about-readify/press/readify-makes-2008-mis-strategic-100-list/ The content of this e-mail, including any attachments is a confidential communication between Readify Pty Ltd and the intended addressee and is for the sole use of that intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and then delete the message and any attachment(s). *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** inline: image001.jpg
