Replying/forwarding complex HTML: Worthless

C

Craig Deutsch

I've scanned the folder here and don't find anything on this, so thought I'd
ask:

Why does Entourage re-format a complex HTML message into code when replying
to or forwarding that message to anyone? This is entirely unacceptable
behavior for a program as sophisticated as is Entourage!

The only workaround I've found is to use the "Redirect" function; however,
you cannot annotate the message and so its efficacy is somewhat limited.

Please tell me this is a confirmed bug for which MS is working on a fix. I
find it hard to believe that this basic capability has been overlooked.

Thanks.
 
B

Barry Wainwright

I've scanned the folder here and don't find anything on this, so thought I'd
ask:

Why does Entourage re-format a complex HTML message into code when replying
to or forwarding that message to anyone? This is entirely unacceptable
behavior for a program as sophisticated as is Entourage!

The only workaround I've found is to use the "Redirect" function; however,
you cannot annotate the message and so its efficacy is somewhat limited.

Please tell me this is a confirmed bug for which MS is working on a fix. I
find it hard to believe that this basic capability has been overlooked.

Thanks.

No, it is not a bug and I doubt that MS are trying to fix it.

Entourage's text generation engine is limited to 'simple HTML', not full
blown web pages. That is an order of complexity much outside Entourage's
current scope.

When entourage reads a message containing complex html it passes it off to
the Tasman Rendering engine to display complex html (if your preferences are
set that way). When you forward or reply to such a message, entourage needs
to edit the HTML, so it gets simplified by the html generating engine. This
is 'as designed'.

The best work-round is to 'forward as attachment'. This is a menu command in
v2004 - there are scripts to do it in vX (or you can drag the message from
the folder listing onto a new draft window). This way, you get the chance ot
add your comments in the 'wrapper' email message and the recipients get the
full blown, undisturbed message as an attachment that can be opened in it's
own right.
 
C

Craig Deutsch

Barry, thanks for the reply. I guess the "Forward as Attachment" is the
reasonable workaround. However, it's curious to me that this capability --
or actually lack thereof -- would be unacceptable to the Windows user
community that deploys Outlook. I know, because I used Outlook extensively
in a corporate environment.

That said, and if Office for Mac is supposed to get close to that of Office
for Windows, why is developing this so complex -- and not on the list of
things to fix?

Thanks.

Craig
 
M

Michael M. Cohen

I have to agree this is a severe limitation of Entourage...Eudora also
has the same shortcoming.

I would like to think that MS will be working on fixing this shortcoming....

That's my opinion

-Michael
 
P

Paul Berkowitz

I don't quite understand what "the Windows user community" has to do with
it. The Windows users on Outlook who _receive_ this message containing a
"Forward As Attachment" message from Entourage will see the forwarded
message in all its HTML glory _displayed inline_ - just like any other
message. They do not have to open or double-click the attachment, or
anything like that. They just read the message as usual. There's nothing
whatsoever for them to object to. And when it comes time for them to forward
a message, they can just do whatever they do in Outlook - it's none of their
concern how we - or their Mac colleagues - do it in Entourage. I'm a little
mystified as to where you think they will be bothered by what people do on
Macs in Entourage.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.
 
C

Craig Deutsch

Paul, perhaps I didn't articulate myself clearly. What I was trying to say
is that when I was working in a Windows environment, the issue I mentioned
with Entourage is not a problem in Outlook. In other words, Outlook is
clearly a superior product when it comes to handling complex HTML messages.
I never needed to worry about forwarding an email as an attachment.

Do you not agree that as a premier and relatively expensive e-mail product,
Entourage should be capable of replying to or forwarding an email that
contains complex HTML -- and that the recipients of those emails should be
able to see the message as intended -- without the user having to choose a
special feature called "Forward as Attachment"?

While "Forward as Attachment" is an effective workaround, I think you'd have
to agree that it is just that -- a workaround for a function that Entourage
should handle seamlessly using either the Reply-To or Forward message
functions.

I'm sure you've seen threads old and new on this subject. Yet from what
I've read, it doesn't appear that Microsoft considers it an issue big enough
to warrant attention, i.e., it's not something that will be fixed in a
future version. However, if you took a poll of people on this board, I have
to make the reasonable assumption that many would express a
concern/frustration over it -- particularly if they're both Mac and PC users
because they likely have Outlook's capabilities as a reference point.

Were Office for Mac not marketed as a fully cross-platform application
suite, perhaps I wouldn't feel like this is such an issue. But it seems to
me that something as fundamental as e-mail application HTML rendering in
today's PC world would *not* be an issue -- or at least not one that wasn't
on the list of things to be fixed.

Craig
 
P

Paul Berkowitz

It's not such a big issue, no, but it's something MacBU is thinking about.
Here's where we are:

Entourage's text editor is based upon the same WASTE text engine used
previously in Outlook Express Mac and in many other Mac applications, with a
special Unicode implementation that lets you type and send in any language
or alphabet. It has various rich text (styled text) features such as bold,
color, etc. but is not a full-featured HTML editor, which WASTE can't
handle. It has absolutely nothing to do with Outlook Windows, nor does
Entourage itself, aside from the corporation that makes it. (The reasons for
that have little or nothing to do with the text engine but rather that
Outlook uses an implementation of a complicated and almost deprecated mail
protocol called MAPI, which is on its way out and would have been a big
mistake to use in a new app on the Mac. So Entourage was created
independently for the Mac.)

As Entourage has evolved, more and more graphics features have been added.
You can now insert pictures, movies, sounds inline, you can add background
pictures, etc. The two things you can't do are create tables and links to
image files on a server.

In earlier versions of Entourage, _viewing_ such "complex HTML" messages
(i.e. containing tables and image web links) were simply passed on to the
HTML rendering engine in Internet Explorer, which can do such things (but
not create HTML source pages). Very late in the Office 2004 development
cycle, Apple created Safari. made it the default browser, and Microsoft
decided therefore not to get in the way, and ended development of IE Mac. So
they included a version of the IE (actually what would have been in the next
IE release) HTML engine (called "Tasman"). It still doesn't crate complex
HTML - it just renders (views) it. Had these events happened earlier, who
knows what there might have been time for.

In Office 2004, they introduced the capability of creating fully featured
"complex HTML" pages by using the new File/Send to Mail Recipient (as HTML)
in Word 2004. Try it. It converts any Word document, including pages with
tables, to HTML and transfers it to Entourage for you to add the recipients.
Naturally you can't edit the HTML page further in Entourage. That doesn't
help with forwarding existing mail, so they also added "Forward As
Attachment". As I already said last time, the "attachment" is seen inline by
recipients, so there is no loss of function or features. That means that you
can now create new HTML messages in Word, and forward existing HTML messages
via "Forward As Attachment". I fail to see why you find it such a great
impediment that you can't do it _exactly the same way you did in Outlook_,
but have to do it a different way. So what? You're using a different app on
a different platform - learn the way to do it here. There's no law that says
it has to be done the same way here. (Or check out Netscape or a Mozilla.)

That said, it's not impossible that in a later release Entourage will
suddenly sprout a fully-fledged HTML editor of its own. I'd be pleased
because hopefully it would then be scriptable - the current styled text
features and graphics insertions are totally unscriptable. In the meantime,
the Send as HTML feature in Word, Forward as Attachment, and mine and Rob
Buckley's Send Complex HTML scripts do a pretty good job of covering the
bases.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.
 
C

Craig Deutsch

Wow, Paul. That was worthy of applause. Thank you for such a detailed
inner view of what stands in the way of the capability I request -- and
which also provides more complete "workarounds." I'll give them a try.

And, while I don't disagree with your "So what? You're using a different app
on a different platform - learn the way to do it here.." quote, I still
stand behind my position that some programmatic change -- whatever that may
be -- such that a simple "Reply-to" or "Forward" command does not hose up
the original HTML message -- is highly desirable and, dare I say it, all but
mandatory. And I don't care who's manufacturing the application; such
features should be available in almost any email application worth its salt
in today's market.

Thanks for taking the time to send such a lengthy reply.

Regards,

Craig Deutsch

P.S. I find it mildly humorous -- and ironic -- that Entourage's text
rendering engine is called "WASTE." :)
 
P

Paul Berkowitz

And, while I don't disagree with your "So what? You're using a different app
on a different platform - learn the way to do it here.." quote, I still
stand behind my position that some programmatic change -- whatever that may
be -- such that a simple "Reply-to" or "Forward" command does not hose up
the original HTML message -- is highly desirable and, dare I say it, all but
mandatory.

That part is true enough. The same thing happens viewing certain HTML
messages (sent from Outlook, as it happens!) but in those case "Reply"
fixes it. I believe that this happens because the originating app (Outlook)
isn't following proper internet protocols, but I might be wrong, it may be a
straight bug in the Tasman engine. I any case, Entourage ought to be smart
enough to deal with these. It's already been logged as a bug, and I expect
it will be fixed in a later release.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.
 
R

Robert Barrimond

That part is true enough. The same thing happens viewing certain HTML
messages (sent from Outlook, as it happens!) but in those case "Reply"
fixes it. I believe that this happens because the originating app (Outlook)
isn't following proper internet protocols, but I might be wrong, it may be a
straight bug in the Tasman engine. I any case, Entourage ought to be smart
enough to deal with these. It's already been logged as a bug, and I expect
it will be fixed in a later release.

Given that Apple has made Safari rendering engine programmatically
accessible to other apps, e.g. Mail, do you think that the MacBU could be
contemplating using it in Entourage? (I don't call this a solution since I
think Apple made the wrong choice in HTML rendering engines, but I'm not the
product manager am I!)
 
Top