TF> Both examples are valid. This could also be achieved with HTML, but
TF> look what people do with it.
Let's not invent aeroplanes since people might use them in war, is that
what you're saying?
I promote progress for the sake of improvement. In the case of richtext
mailing, the improvements
Hello Bernd,
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:55:29 +0100 GMT (19/07/02, 13:55 +0700 GMT),
Bernd Gauweiler wrote:
BG> It always amazes me how many people only associate the use of text
BG> attributes and different fonts as a means for yelling, annoying
BG> decorations, and so forth.
Because this is what
TF> Please, don't do it to me. If you want to enhance a word in an email,
TF> do it by writing a context that makes me understand "why", not just by
TF> yelling it at me.
It always amazes me how many people only associate the use of text
attributes and different fonts as a means for yelling, anno
Hello Sudip Pokhrel,
In Reference to your Posting on Thursday, July 18 2002 at 06:30 PM PDT,
> NA> it would be nice to use bolded text, or underline, or colour a
> NA> certain word, or even change the point size of a word...
> Does Rich Text guarantee WYSIWYG at both ends?
No, but using Fixed
Hi Nick,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:58:51 -0700 GMT (Jul 18, 22:43 my local time),
you [NA] wrote:
NA> it would be nice to use bolded text, or underline, or colour a
NA> certain word, or even change the point size of a word...
Does Rich Text guarantee WYSIWYG at both ends?
--
Cheers,
Sudip
Hello Thomas!
On Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 7:37:13 PM you wrote:
> I disagree. Maybe that's because when I was at school (which is many
> winters ago), we learned that a good writing style includes to make
> yourself understood without all this. Even without parenthesis and all
> those neat lit
Hello Nick,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:58:51 -0700 GMT (18/07/02, 23:58 +0700 GMT),
Nick Andriash wrote:
NA> I agree as well... it would be nice to use bolded text, or underline, or
NA> colour a certain word, or even change the point size of a word...
I disagree. Maybe that's because when I was at
Hello Bernd Gauweiler,
In Reference to your Posting on Thursday, July 18 2002 at 12:48 AM PDT,
> To the vast majority of email users, competent or not, plain text
> mailing looks exactly like what it is: plain. Outdated.
I agree as well... it would be nice to use bolded text, or underline, or
c
BK> Suggestion: Perhaps the richtext viewer could auto underline words
BK> like _this_ or auto-bold words like *this* ? Just a thought.
I have no interest there; I usually disable all auto-formatting
promptly. My desire was to compose and send richtext messages, so that
richtext-aware recipient
Hi Bernd,
On Thursday, July 18, 2002, 7:44:05 AM, you [BG] wrote:
BG> Since you asked: Richtext, because it allows for formatting (like HTML),
BG> but doesn't allow for potentially dangerous active content (unlike
BG> HTML).
I have always felt that Richtext email should be more popular but
alas
Hi Bernd,
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:44:05 +0100 GMT (Jul 18, 12:29 my local time),
you [BG] wrote:
BG> but I fail to find an option that allows me to compose and send
BG> richtext (as opposed to plain text) messages.
That's because there aren't any. TB! is a plain text client.
BG> Any known plans
I understand I can set the TB! message viewer to view richtext and HTML
messages, but I fail to find an option that allows me to compose and
send richtext (as opposed to plain text) messages.
Am I overlooking something?
Any known plans for a future release?
Since you asked: Richtext, because it
12 matches
Mail list logo
