Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email

caniemail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 206 posts

Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email

#42

Post by t0astbread »

ktpsns wrote: post #4

It would be really nice to have a small and simple markup language, say some markdown standard, to be the layouting language for E-Mails. No (external) images, just links, lists, headings, basic formatting. HTML E-Mails are a security nightmare, even if "only" CSS is "allowed" and JS/iframes/external images are not loaded.

This + multipart/alternative email and maybe something like uMatrix or similar firewall mechanisms in mail clients

Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email

#44

Post by krapp »

swalladge wrote: post #25
jobigoud wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's convenient for underline, bold or italics in some long winded messages.

That's why we have lightweight markup syntaxes like markdown.

Markdown is a lightweight syntax for writing and generating HTML, like BBCode. It's not an alternative syntax to HTML.

Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email

#45

Post by svat »

orf wrote: post #23
svat wrote: post #22

I'm just now trying to send some mathematics in an email (where most recipients will be reading it in Gmail), so I'm having to figure out what subset of HTML and CSS Gmail supports. (Found this reference for CSS: https://developers.google.com/gmail/design/reference/support... ) It turns out that simply using MathJax or KaTeX and pasting the resulting web page into an email doesn't work: Gmail doesn't support SVG imag…

Have you done any benchmarking on the sizes of the images? I cannot imagine a JPEG math expression, cached by google, is going to take an age to load when viewed in Gmail and not be that large.

That's a good question. The actual size of the images is not large: the problem is that I can visually see the email take a while to load properly, even for an email containing just two PNG images that are 2941 bytes and 6333 bytes respectively. If nearly every sentence were to be interrupted a few times with such delayed-loading images, the reading experience would be rather poor.

(This was with the images self-contained in the email, which seems to be implemented under the hood by having them be attachments and referring to them in the body, so the loading happens out of order... I haven't tried with the images being loaded as external images, but that has its own problems such as Gmail probably not loading them by default, or having to ensure the images will be available over the internet for as long as anyone might want to read the email which if you're sending it to a mailing list is ideally forever, etc.)

Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email

#46

Post by ndidi »

grenoire wrote: post #9

Christ on a bike, the state of Outlook on Windows is absolutely miserable. I knew it by experience when I started preparing HTML signatures for our company, but seeing the list makes me even sadder about the absolute state of incompetency caused by legacy systems in Microsoft. For those uninformed, Outlook on Windows effectively works on a terrible (and terribly old) implementation of HTML that was initially develope…

Everything that discourages designers from doing fancy things is good in my book.

Re: Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email

#47

Post by marban »

Anyone wanna chime in on conversion rates when it comes to styled vs. plain text? I always hear that the latter converts better, i.e. "Make it look like as if it was sent by a friend" and obviously it's a business related matter but I wonder why plain isn't used more often when visuals/emotion aren't the #1 selling points.
Post reply on HN