Max Wanadoo
max.wanadoo at gmail.com
Wed Aug 12 17:20:39 CDT 2009
There we go, John. Now who is wrong.....words from the Master. Bend your nee Max Ps. That aside, Pegaus is krp -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Stuart McLachlan Sent: 12 August 2009 22:52 To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Zoho Access Migration Plugin Mine doesn't. I refuse to use a mailer that users any browser to render HTML - that's how your system gets pwned. My mailer (Pegasus Mail) uses a completely separate HTML engine which does not execute ANY scripts and does not downloaded linked graphics by default. And you'll find that Outlook does not use your "default browser". Even if you are configured to use Firefox as your browser, your HTML mail will be rendered by either IE or MS Word depending on which version you use - prior to Office 2007 it was IE, for 2007 and apparently for 2010, it is rendered by MS Word. -- Stuart On 12 Aug 2009 at 16:45, jwcolby wrote: > > Nothing to do (I would suggest) with rendering. > > ROTFL, if course it is something to do with rendering. Your default browser renders the email when > it includes HTML. > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > > Max Wanadoo wrote: > > If they don't shown on your email, in general, it will because of an error > > in the way the email was constructed by the sender. Embedding graphics etc > > is difficult (for me) > > > > Nothing to do (I would suggest) with rendering. > > > > Max > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby > > Sent: 12 August 2009 21:01 > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Zoho Access Migration Plugin > > > > >> The point is, things are significantly better now with modern browsers. > > Your development > > experience back then does not have to be repeated today. > > > > And MY point is that "significantly better" can still be pretty screwy. > > > > I use Blockbuster. They mail me disks and I mail them back. They email me > > "we sent you" and "we > > received" kinds of emails as they ship and receive the disks. > > > > Those emails were working just fine, suddenly they are rendering as the > > "outlines" of where there > > should be little pictures. BUT... NOT ALWAYS. Some emails render > > correctly, some don't. It > > APPEARS to be something they are doing on their end, something that they > > insert into the page to be > > rendered because I can go back to emails in the beginning and they ALL > > render correctly. > > > > The bigger point here is that Access "renders" fine regardless. As does VB > > / C# .Net. HTML is just > > too "out there", and the render engines are too independently defined to be > > 100% reliable. So we > > have the question "am I going to put my business on that foundation"? If I > > am NOT going to try to > > access the database remotely over the web, if I am just doing this internal, > > why in the world would > > I do that? > > > > Think about this Blockbuster experience. I am a database developer for some > > company, and suddenly I > > am stopping what I am doing to try to figure out why the render engine (at > > the far end no less) is > > dropping all of the pictures. THAT IS NOT DATABASE STUFF, not application > > stuff!!! That is not my > > application, that is not what they hired me to do. Now I understand that > > Blockbuster has a pressing > > need, but the point is that if I am a developer for an INTERNAL application, > > I would be thinking > > VERY carefully about this kind of experience before I recommended going to a > > browser based application. > > > > Whether you do Access or a .Net is a whole 'nother question, but to try and > > make an application > > "browser based" just seems to be a non-starter UNLESS there is a pressing > > need to do so that is not > > being addressed by a "Windows Native" application. "Just because it's cool" > > is not (IMHO) a > > pressing need. > > > > John W. Colby > > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > > > > > Mark Simms wrote: > >> Funny.... > >> I've been waiting for 6 months for Firefox to be fixed to render a web > > page > >> that IE6 rendered easily. > >> Sent them 3 tech support requests. It was never fixed. > >> It was some sort of "grid" heavily CSS-based. > >> The website must have been getting complaints as a result of complaints > > from > >> Firefox users.... > >> so they changed it to show the data as PDF file links ! > >> That's great progress....and very typical of "today's" tech environment: > >> Doing the right thing, versus DOING THINGS RIGHT. > >>> All modern browsers pass the Acid2 test: > >>> http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ > >>> > >>> And most make significant inroads on Acid3: > >>> http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/ > >>> > >>> The point is, things are significantly better now with modern > >>> browsers. Your development experience back then does not have > >>> to be repeated today. > >> You are partially correct..it was back in the oh-so-awful days of Netscape > > ! > >> > >> > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com