JoeS wrote:
So, I have a little time on this holiday to gripe some. It's all a
matter of user perceptions. Tbird doesn't do what
the user wants, relative to Javascript, and HTML composition, therefore
it is not a capable newsreader. Being secure
does not help. Take a look at prefs. First off there is no UI to help
the user. At least the advanced user can change
things with Advanced Config Editor. But change what? CAPS policy is one
way to enable Tbird, but this method is daunting
even for advanced users. The facts are, that not all newsgroups use
plaintext, there is an HTML/CSS/Javascript world out
there, that Tbird simply ignores. And not just from the execution
standpoint. Advanced editor in composition, has been
virtually unchanged since Ben Goodger wrote it years ago. A nice piece
of work, but now unchanged since the original.
If Thunderbird is ever going to compete with E from the standpoint of
HTML composition, this must change. There are very
few users that realize that most things that are done in E with
VBscript, can be done with Javascript in Tbird.
So Thunderbird has really been rendered Impotent by the lack of
development here.
I remember when the marquee tag was enabled by default in the browser.
It was quite some controversy. But the facts spoke
for themselves. The Web used the tag, so to be a competitor Gecko had to
recognize that fact. Interestingly, in mail.
full use of the marquee tag was not enabled until just recently,and just
on trunk builds.I guess that tells us something.
I am rambling some, I guess, so I won't get into Plugin support, Java
applets, and native sound playing capabilities.
yeah, one of my many regrets from N4.x days, the inability to compose
a background in a div or table. Possible only
if you use JS and hack the CAPS. A simple thing in N4.x
</diatribe>
JoeS

Really accurate, but you're just pissing into the wind, IMH

T-bird Leader Gus Richter radioed the tower 9/4/2006 2:14 PM:

JoeS wrote:
>So, I have a little time on this holiday to gripe some. It's all a
>matter of user perceptions. Tbird doesn't do what
>the user wants, relative to Javascript, and HTML composition,
>therefore it is not a capable newsreader. Being secure
>does not help. Take a look at prefs. First off there is no UI to help
>the user. At least the advanced user can change
>things with Advanced Config Editor. But change what? CAPS policy is
>one way to enable Tbird, but this method is daunting
>even for advanced users. The facts are, that not all newsgroups use
>plaintext, there is an HTML/CSS/Javascript world out
>there, that Tbird simply ignores. And not just from the execution
>standpoint. Advanced editor in composition, has been
>virtually unchanged since Ben Goodger wrote it years ago. A nice piece
>of work, but now unchanged since the original.
>If Thunderbird is ever going to compete with E from the standpoint of
>HTML composition, this must change. There are very
>few users that realize that most things that are done in E with
>VBscript, can be done with Javascript in Tbird.
>So Thunderbird has really been rendered Impotent by the lack of
>development here.
>I remember when the marquee tag was enabled by default in the browser.
>It was quite some controversy. But the facts spoke
>for themselves. The Web used the tag, so to be a competitor Gecko had
>to recognize that fact. Interestingly, in mail.
>full use of the marquee tag was not enabled until just recently,and
>just on trunk builds.I guess that tells us something.
>I am rambling some, I guess, so I won't get into Plugin support, Java
>applets, and native sound playing capabilities.
>yeah, one of my many regrets from N4.x days, the inability to
>compose a background in a div or table. Possible only
>if you use JS and hack the CAPS. A simple thing in N4.x
></diatribe>
>JoeS

Really accurate, but you're just pissing into the wind, IMH

I know Gus, and am glad JoeS is championing the cause. Both of you have
butted your heads against the Composer wall since TB 0.1a like I have. I
am not as persistent and am less tolerant of the pain of generating good
code that works with the abilities of Gecko to render. It's too hard and
requires use of a stack of note cards to keep all the CSS selector value
pairs organized. Templates are a help, but not the answer, as I have to
depend on an expert to build new templated designs. What is lost is
freedom of expression and a clarity of communication that at times only
HTML with CSS can deliver in Mail or News. I will even go so far as to
say we need in Tbird a Report Broken Message tool patterned on the broken
page tool in Firefox. K, not really, but it states a point that some code
generators for HTML mail are still not standards compliant.

Enjoy the holiday and see you all on the other side.

Ron K. said on 4.9.2006 21:11:
some code generators for HTML mail
are still not standards compliant.
Could you please point me to these standards, particularly for HTML
quoting? Thanks.

T-bird Leader Peter Lairo radioed the tower 9/4/2006 4:20 PM:

Ron K. said on 4.9.2006 21:11:
>some code generators for HTML mail are still not standards compliant.

Could you please point me to these standards, particularly for HTML
quoting? Thanks.

The HTML 4.01 Recommendation of the W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4
The CSS2.1 Recommendation of the W3c. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

Are these what you asked for?

Ron K. wrote on 05.09.2006 06:24:
T-bird Leader Peter Lairo radioed the tower 9/4/2006 4:20 PM:
>Ron K. said on 4.9.2006 21:11:
some code generators for HTML mail are still not standards compliant.
>>
>Could you please point me to these standards, particularly for HTML
>quoting? Thanks.

The HTML 4.01 Recommendation of the W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4
The CSS2.1 Recommendation of the W3c. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

Are these what you asked for?

I don't think so. I was asking about *e-mail* quoting, and your links
seem to address (only|mainly?) web pages.

A search for "mail" or "quote" in the first link yielded:
"9.2.2 Quotations: The BLCKQUTE and Q elements"
"These two elements designate quoted text. BLCKQUTE is for long
quotations (block-level content) and Q is intended for short quotations
(inline content) that don't require paragraph breaks."
The term "mail" doesn't appear at all on that page.

A search for "mail" or "quote" in the second link yielded:
"12.3.1 Specifying quotes with the 'quotes' property"

Is there no specification for *e-mail* quoting?

Thunderbird _seems_ to use both BLCKQUTE and CITE. Here's an example
from a recent exchange I had:

<blockquote cite="mid448F0BA8.9010106 (AT) Lairo (DOT) com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=IS" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Am Freitag fliegen wir fr 3 Wochen in die USA. Aber jetzt zu
deiner
e-mail<br>
</blockquote>

BTW: Where is the close tag to the "meta content" tag?

T-bird Leader Peter Lairo radioed the tower 9/5/2006 7:26 AM:

Ron K. wrote on 05.09.2006 06:24:
>T-bird Leader Peter Lairo radioed the tower 9/4/2006 4:20 PM:
Ron K. said on 4.9.2006 21:11:
some code generators for HTML mail are still not standards compliant.

Could you please point me to these standards, particularly for HTML
quoting? Thanks.
>>
>The HTML 4.01 Recommendation of the W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4
>The CSS2.1 Recommendation of the W3c. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
>>
>Are these what you asked for?

I don't think so. I was asking about *e-mail* quoting, and your links
seem to address (only|mainly?) web pages.

A search for "mail" or "quote" in the first link yielded:
"9.2.2 Quotations: The BLCKQUTE and Q elements"
"These two elements designate quoted text. BLCKQUTE is for long
quotations (block-level content) and Q is intended for short quotations
(inline content) that don't require paragraph breaks."
The term "mail" doesn't appear at all on that page.

A search for "mail" or "quote" in the second link yielded:
"12.3.1 Specifying quotes with the 'quotes' property"

Is there no specification for *e-mail* quoting?

Thunderbird _seems_ to use both BLCKQUTE and CITE. Here's an example
from a recent exchange I had:

<blockquote cite="mid448F0BA8.9010106 (AT) Lairo (DOT) com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html;charset=IS" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Am Freitag fliegen wir fr 3 Wochen in die USA. Aber jetzt zu
deiner
e-mail<br>
</blockquote>

BTW: Where is the close tag to the "meta content" tag?

It is my understanding that any application the intends to support HTML
4.01 must comply with the minimum specifications for each element detailed
in the W3C HTML 4.01 Recommendation. That means E-mail as well as any
other application. You found in 9.2.2 the tags relevant to quoting and as
long as an application respects use of those tags in a consistent manner I
am happy.

Look up the CITE tag in the recommendation. I think you will find that
CITE defines the styling of the text. Blockquote defines the layout of
the quote within the flow of the document. The block you are quoting is a
portion of a content ID (CID) which in HTML mail readers performs a URI
task similar to use of an external URL in web documents. Within the flow
of the HTML, it points to a specific inline attachment that needs to be
inserted into the HTML document at that point for display, after the
attachment is decoded.

Meta tags are presented near the beginning of the recommendation. IIRC
meta tags do not use close tags because they are a closed container.

As for the e-mail RFC specifications, I have no idea what document sets
standards for e-mail messages.