Re: Mail layout and fonts

[Elias Mårtenson]

On 16 April 2015 at 00:28, Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> wrote:

Elias Mårtenson <lokedhs@gmail.com> writes:

> I disagree. Sometimes you are working in an
> organisation where Outlook is the main means of
> communication. If so, you need to (unfortunately)
> post messages that conforms to this style.
> This includes including the entire email chain below
> your message, as well as your own messages being
> HTML formatted.

That never happened to me, and God willing it
never will.

Yes, you are lucky. Please see my previous email for some further elaboration. :-)

 

I see it even left you post-traumatized because you
don't quote like us but instead answer hanging in the
air and then leave the replied-to post in its entirety
below you post.

Actually, that has a different cause, that being the fact that I'm replying to this list

using Gmail which sadly hides the entire quotation when replying.

 

Also, it doesn't matter if anyone uses Outlook or Gnus
or any other client for that matter. Well, of course
it matters in the sense that those with style and
precision use Gnus.

I agree.

 

But it doesn't matter how quoting
should be done, how the signature should be done
(below a double dash and a space, i.e. "-- " as
described in section 4.3 of [1]), and so on. Mails are
interface agnostic - or should be.

I agree, but when you're a single person in an environment consisting of tens

of thousands of people it's either adapt or find a different career. As much as

I like Gnus and proper email quoting, and I also like my job so I'm willing to put

in the work needed to allow me to combine the things I like.

My assumption is that there are at least one more person out there is my

situation, which is why I posted my reply.

That said, I still do my part inproving standards. Outlook litters the HTML full of

non-standard tags (which come from the MS-Word HTML generator that I believe

Outlook uses for creating the mail content). When I process the email chain I

happily remove all of that before reconstructing the HTML reply chain prior to

adding my reply on top. This is another reason I need a structured HTML parser.

Emacs have several web browsers - for example the
high-quality piece of software Emacs w3m. Emacs w3m is
in the Debian repositories but isn't shipped with
Emacs. But Emacs comes with eww which should be good
but with many less man-hours put into it compared to
the mature Emacs w3m. Anyway I don't see how any of
this would work without (probably several)
HTML parsers?

I've looked at them. Unfortunately they do not parse the HTML into a structured

document, but rather directly into output suitable for rendering to the screen.

I can't use that to reconstruct the original HTML.

Regards,

Elias