Content deleted Content added
m Task 16: replaced (3×) / removed (0×) deprecated |dead-url= and |deadurl= with |url-status=; |
|||
Line 8:
Since its conception, a number of people have vocally opposed all HTML email (and even [[MIME]] itself), for a variety of reasons.<ref>[https://subversion.american.edu/aisaac/notes/htmlmail.htm HTML Email: Whenever Possible, Turn It Off!]</ref> For instance, the [[ASCII Ribbon Campaign]] advocated that all email should be sent in [[ASCII]] text format. The campaign was unsuccessful and was abandoned in 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Ascii Ribbon Campaign official homepage |url=http://www.asciiribbon.org/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = Shutdown of the ASCII ribbon campaign - Pale Moon forum|url = http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2705|website = forum.palemoon.org|access-date = 2016-01-30}}</ref> While still considered inappropriate in many newsgroup postings and mailing lists, its adoption for personal and business mail has only increased over time. Some of those who strongly opposed it when it first came out now see it as mostly harmless.<ref>[http://birdhouse.org/blog/2006/01/15/html-email-the-poll/ HTML Email: The Poll] (Scot Hacker, originator of the much-linked-to ''Why HTML in E-Mail is a Bad Idea'' discusses how his feelings have changed since the 1990s)</ref>
According to surveys by [[online marketing]] companies, adoption of HTML-capable email clients is now nearly universal, with less than 3% reporting that they use text-only clients.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Email Marketing Statistics and Metrics - EmailLabs |url=http://www.emaillabs.com/tools/email-marketing-statistics.html |date=2007-03-29 |access-date=2016-01-30 |quote=HTML has nearly universal adoption among consumers: A Jupiter Research consumer survey found just 3% receive only text email. |
== Compatibility ==
Line 15:
Among those email clients that do support HTML, some do not render it consistently with [[W3C]] specifications, and many HTML emails are not compliant either, which may cause rendering or delivery problems.
In particular, the <code><nowiki><head></nowiki></code> tag, which is used to house CSS style rules for an entire HTML document, is not well supported, sometimes stripped entirely, causing in-line style declarations to be the [[De facto standard|''de facto'' standard]], even though in-line style declarations are inefficient and fail to take good advantage of HTML's ability to separate style from content.{{cn|date=January 2015}} Although workarounds have been developed,<ref>{{cite web|author=Dialect <http://dialect.ca/> |url=http://premailer.dialect.ca/ |title=Premailer: make CSS inline for HTML e-mail |publisher=Premailer.dialect.ca |date= |accessdate=2012-06-24}}</ref> this has caused no shortage of frustration among newsletter developers, spawning the [[grassroots]] [http://www.email-standards.org/ Email Standards Project], which grades email clients on their rendering of an acid test, inspired by those of the [[Web Standards Project]], and lobbies developers to improve their products. To persuade [[Google]] to improve rendering in [[Gmail]], for instance, they published a video montage of grimacing web developers,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.email-standards.org/gmail-appeal |title=The 2008 Gmail Appeal | Email Standards Project |publisher=Email-standards.org
{| class="wikitable"
Line 72:
== Style ==
Some senders may excessively rely upon large, colorful, or distracting [[font]]s, making messages more difficult to read.<ref>{{cite web |last=Shobe |first=Matt |url=http://www.burningdoor.com/matt/archives/000782.html |title=A pretty fair argument against HTML Email |publisher=Burningdoor.com |date=2004-10-12 |accessdate=2012-06-24 |
== Multi-part formats ==
| |||