| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Breaks HTML Email Rendering in Outlook 2007 | |
|
||
| Time: 05:47 EST/10:47 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
While the IE team was soothing the tortured souls of web developers everywhere with the new, more compliant Internet Explorer 7, the Office team pulled a fast one, ripping out the IE-based rendering engine that Outlook has always used for email, and replacing it with … drum roll please … Microsoft Word. That’s right. Instead of taking advantage of Internet Explorer 7, Outlook 2007 uses the very limited support for HTML and CSS that is built into Word 2007 to display HTML email messages. Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 uses the HTML parsing and rendering engine from Microsoft Office Word 2007 to display HTML message bodies. The same HTML and cascading style sheets (CSS) support available in Word 2007 is available in Outlook 2007. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:41:02 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2201 (212.117.228.133) at 1/10/2007 7:30:41 AM |
| I wondered where the option to choose Word or its own internal HTML editor has gone! I long suspected that they had simply integrated the Word editor as the default (and unchangeable) choice. |
| #2 By 72122 (65.32.38.117) at 1/10/2007 7:42:39 AM |
|
I was wondering what was wrong with it.
I've been using Outlook 2007 for a while now and have even been using the final version for a month now and I had noticed that HTML messages render slowly and often they don't render correctly at all. There will be missing images and text that is clearly out of position. |
| #3 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 1/10/2007 9:18:05 AM |
|
On the surface, this has the appearance of being a phenomenally stupid design decision.
With the release of Outlook 2007, Microsoft is effectively adding an entirely new rendering engine to the mix—one that designers producing HTML email will not be able to ignore. Not only that, but this new rendering engine isn’t any better than that which Outlook previously used—indeed, it’s far worse. One step forward, two steps back. |
| #4 By 20 (152.133.15.64) at 1/10/2007 9:59:55 AM |
| Not to mention that the Word rendering engine doesn't undergo the same security scrutiny that IE6/7 does. Be prepared for rafts of worms and viruses that will exploit this under-scrutinized engine. |
| #5 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/10/2007 10:40:51 AM |
|
"no support for background images (HTML or CSS) "
Yes there is. Options --> Page Color --> Fill Effects --> Picture I picked the Blue Hills from my Sample Pictures folder. Resulting in this code: <body bgcolor=white background="cid:image001.jpg@01C73492.787399E0" lang=EN-US link="#67AFBD" vlink="#C2A874"> <img src="cid:image001.jpg@01C73492.787399E0" v:src="cid:image001.jpg@01C73492.787399E0" v:shapes="_x0000_Mail" width=0 height=0 class=shape style='display:none;width:0;height:0'><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <v:background id="_x0000_s1025" o:bwmode="white" o:targetscreensize="800,600"> <v:fill src="cid:image001.jpg@01C73492.787399E0" o:title="Blue hills" recolor="t" type="frame" /> </v:background></xml><![endif]--> This post was edited by NotParker on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 10:41. |
| #6 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 1/10/2007 11:01:51 AM |
| Simple solution is to go back to Outlook 2003, still the best e-mail program that is widely available. I had lots of problems with Outlook 2007. I'l wait until at least Office 2007SP1 to try Outlook 2007 again. |
| #7 By 65179 (221.128.181.63) at 1/10/2007 12:20:04 PM |
| OMG! I didn't know this...goodbye Outlook. |
| #8 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/10/2007 12:42:44 PM |
|
#6, the spec uses a sub-set of IE - c'mon, let's not do this.
#7, You are kidding, right? The goal in OL2K7 was to be more "standards" compliant and open to people using CSS over tables in direct response to customer requests for that support. That objective was achieved. Please read the spec. |
| #9 By 2201 (62.252.0.9) at 1/10/2007 1:44:30 PM |
| #5 & #8 - I'm confused. So is this article correct, completely wrong, or wrong on crucial details (e.g. background pics)? |
| #10 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/10/2007 2:39:32 PM |
|
#9 and all,
LOOK. Begin here, - What's New for Developers in Outlook 2007, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa905463.aspx Then go here, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338201.aspx Be sure to review [if it is at all relevant to you and your profession, or interests OR if you just like to get facts and see for yourself] both parts one (1) and two (2) REF, Word 2007 HTML and CSS Rendering Capabilities in Outlook 2007 (Part 1 of 2) Then download and use the CSS Validation tool for Outlook 2007 - 2007 Office System Tool: Outlook HTML and CSS Validator, http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=0b764c08-0f86-431e-8bd5-ef0e9ce26a3a&displaylang=en Then build some form based HTML news letters of your and see how dang easy and fast it is - and test to see how compliant it is. Then if you want, sign up and log into some of these sites where people skipped all the above, and expressed their agenda in their posts, and set them on a path that includes at least some facts and the truth - as well as a wad of tools. If that doesn't work and they still hold out that OL2K7 is a dud and we should all run out and download Thunderbird for our enterprises and business customers, then I can offer nothing else we might try. We have to understand that people that will look for fault will find it - in anything, everything and everyone. If they look for what is good, they will find that, too. People don't, because for some crazy reason, they feel better when someone else loses. |
| #11 By 20 (152.133.15.64) at 1/10/2007 2:59:43 PM |
|
#10, I think the point is: How many more half-assed, non-ACID2 compliant rendering engines do we need -- let alone need from Microsoft?
The world does not need more almost-compliant quirks-mode browsers especially when they're going to be major-deployment front-line browsers (or email render engines, same thing). MS invested a lot of time and energy into improving (however marginally) the IE7 engine, they should stick with consistency. At least when the vulnerabilities start pouring in, they're only fighting one fire instead of 2. |
| #12 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/10/2007 3:04:38 PM |
| Congratulations to lketchum for being the first poster to mention Thunderbird. |
| #13 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/10/2007 3:55:36 PM |
|
#11 I like the fact that many HTML elements that could be maliciously used in email are not supported:
Word 2007 does not support: applet bdo button form iframe input isindex menu noframes noscript object optgroup option param q script select Do you really want to get HTML email with embedded applets? scripts? objects? If you want security, you need to give some stuff up. Like scripts in your email. |
| #14 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 1/10/2007 4:52:29 PM |
| #13, - Yup - hence the spec and the tools as I sited. |
| #15 By 3384 (24.22.75.254) at 1/10/2007 7:53:46 PM |
|
For security, it's a great thing.
For speed, it's a terrible thing, at least for complex HTML newsletters, such as those from CNN and NYTimes. Dead simple HTML still renders with acceptable speed. I haven't really found that it breaks any mails that I can recall (including complex HTML newsletters), though it had severe problems in that area during the beta. So the title of this article is a poor one. |
| #16 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 1/11/2007 8:43:13 AM |
| I hate HTML e-mail, all I want is plain or possibly rich text. |
| #17 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/11/2007 9:14:32 AM |
|
#16, I am with you on that one. It is not polite. Efficient, some would argue, but not polite.
"ever get a call from someone to say they are sorry, or they'd like to speak to you about an offer of some kind?" It's not polite, or sincere, because it is made by them at a time when it is convenient for "them." Without their having any ability to know whether the time they choose is convenient for yourself and you, answering the call, or seeing the mail, having no idea what the subject is to be - you have to consume it all without any prior knowledge and fit it in at that moment. A written [on paper] letter is different. It communicates much more respect - regardless of subject, because one may choose to read it when it is convenient, or appropriate to do so. One may also read it again and again and against a familiar hand, one can pick up a great deal about how the person felt at the time they wrote it. I think you are right to hate it and people are wrong to send it as casually as they do. We help a young man out a lot. He's young, but I swear he has an ancient heart. Though he can't afford fees, much less the monster bills that his site creates for me, he does always send a hand written note of thanks. He could email it, sure, but he doesn't. He writes it with a pen. Perhaps without knowing it directly, he communicates more respect than anything else. |
| #18 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 1/11/2007 9:22:55 AM |
| #16, 17: Here, here! |
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/11/2007 2:31:26 PM |
| #17: Unlike a phone call, an email can be kept and read at a more convenient time too. Just like a paper letter, but without the need for a tree to be killed first. So I guess if you had it your way, we'd all be snail mailing letters to each other, instead of sending emails and posting messages to message boards like this one? |
| #20 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/11/2007 3:30:24 PM |
| And of course, if you really prefer everything to be on paper, you could always print out your emails, and then read them off the printouts at your convenience. |
| #21 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/11/2007 4:12:06 PM |
|
#19, No, of course not, but when important, or to add a touch to an email, a letter can communicate a great deal and carry a value of its own.
I do think that emails can and should be more thoughtful - more complete. I don't think that overly styled HTML email has as much value as some do. If used conservatively, they can be very effective. Each form does have its own value, but I do fear that the written letter is used to seldom. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 319 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:41:02 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
