201–210 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you’re talking about the subset of HTML+CSS used in ePub. Come to think, ebooks and emails have pretty similar “richness” needs.
> Sounds like you’re talking about the subset of HTML+CSS used in ePub. EPUB3 supports JS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Gmail is already a web app, and only supports a tiny subset of modern HTML and CSS. The limitation is of course arbitrary, it could in theory support any modern standards. But HTML mail is so quirky and full of hacks, that they probably have to do it that way to preserve compatibility. Apple's Mail app is one of the few modern mail clients that can render modern HTML/CSS
Given that email is MIME (i.e. you can add multiple “bodies” to a message, with different content-types, and the email client will select the best one it can render), you’d think we could just come up with a new content-type for email meaning “HTML, but for real”, and add that to email in addition to the current “HTML, but sucky” semantics we get from text/html-typed bodies. For a while, people would be sending both…
I smell a lot of nostalgia in this thread, and rightfully so! IE has been a terrible browser, but it was our terrible browser. But fear not! Outlook still uses the HTML parsing engine from MS Word (!) to display your HTML emails, and it's not going anywhere.
When Outlook becomes a PWA (currently in test, I think it's probably two-three years from stable), it'll be rendering mail with all the functionality of Blink. Which depending on your point of view, means a sigh of relief or time to buy more RAM. https://www.windowscentral.com/project-monarch-outlook-web-u...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a version of myself aged in their twenties and working in web development that really wants to stab anyone believing that IE6 was the best browser. I won't argue that it wasn't decent at launch, but MS kept support for that browser around way too long and failed to actually roll out support for new features that customers desired. I believe it was the era of IE6 specifically that led to the proliferation of to…
Oh, don't get me wrong - it was a Trojan Horse, and my first ever web browsing experience was on Navigator, so it was a hard-hearted appreciation at the time. But from my stand point then, It Just Worked.
I switched to IE until the Mozilla suit released and later on switched to Firefox 0.something - it was amazing how fast it was compared to both IE6 and Mozilla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Outlook becomes a PWA (currently in test, I think it's probably two-three years from stable), it'll be rendering mail with all the functionality of Blink. Which depending on your point of view, means a sigh of relief or time to buy more RAM. https://www.windowscentral.com/project-monarch-outlook-web-u...
Wow this is awful. I just moved to an outlook company after years on google. It’s so nice having my mail client be native.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going a bit further back, IE 5 and 6 were the best browser by far. Strange for me to think that my now-beloved Firefox has its heritage embedded in Netscape, which at the same time as IE5 was an absolute pig. - ed for some reason I have it in mind as IE5.5 specifically that was The Great IE.
It was IE 5.5 that was particularly a champ compared to the terrible Netscape Communicator / Netscape 4 product. I continued to regularly use Netscape 4 through those years, as I didn't like IE, and it was a real dog in most every respect. Netscape took their eye off the ball in an attempt to further build their business away from the browser (Communicator of course was their suite attempt), and failed at both things…
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
I also vaguely remember jwz writing about the experience of developing it.
It also paved the way for technology to focus on security, standards and most of all, a better and standardized approach for browser technology.
I smell a lot of nostalgia in this thread, and rightfully so! IE has been a terrible browser, but it was our terrible browser. But fear not! Outlook still uses the HTML parsing engine from MS Word (!) to display your HTML emails, and it's not going anywhere.
If they took the Edge rendering engine (which is really like Chromium or some close approximation of it now) and put it in the IE UI instead of the opposite, I think that would get a lot of praise from me and probably many others including all the Google-drunk web developers. Those who like IE and prefer it to other browsers are doing so despite its horrible rendering engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTML/CSS is designed to be safe for web by browser vendors and working groups. Unused HTML/CSS feature is fine as long as it's not vulnerable, but blacklist for email is problem because new feature is not designed to be safe for email. Theoretically email client vendor can host working group like WHATWG to define standard by picking subset from web HTML/CSS. I don't know why it's not happened.
Can you share some CSS vulnerabilities that would work in email but not in a browser? I can certainly think of CSS vulnerabilities that would not work in email because email can't execute javascript, but can't come up with the reverse off the top of my head. Genuinely curious here.
* iframe content inside message is editable after message sent.
* Java Applet/ActiveX is almost dead, but still available. Should it be allowed on email? (for web mail on IE11/Trident)
* Sanitizing JavaScript from HTML by blacklisting isn't simple operation. Possibly attack vector. (for web mail)