15 ms·
Can I Email: ‘Can I Use’ for email
- akuji1993 7y agoJust saw Rémi Parmentiers talk at SmashingConf 2019, worth a watch, it's not online yet though, so you guys might have to wait a day or two. He's the guy behind this project and probably one of the most knowledgable persons about everything email.
- volument 7y agoThis is good! I have searched for this actually. However this seems to lack the most important thing (for me): the global usage percentage of a particular feature, which is the #1 deciding factor whether to use a HTML/CSS feature or not.
- longwave 7y agoI think that would be difficult to calculate accurately. We can collect user-agent statistics from browsers but mail clients don't have an equivalent when reading mail.
- volument 7y agoA rough estimate would satisfy me at least. Seems Litmus has farily broad statistics from 823 million opened emails: https://emailclientmarketshare.com/ https://emailclientmarketshare.com/ (August 2019)
- yyyk 7y agoIt's probably strongly tilted towards email clients which don't block external images by default, and email clients used by people who are more likely to be targets of a marketing campaign (i.e. richer 1st world people).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- u801e 7y agoA number of email clients will add a header line that identifies them to every email that's sent.
- jcranmer 7y agoThe problem is that you don't care about email clients as distributed by senders, you care about the distribution of recipients. Especially if you're a marketer trying to gauge what kind of HTML you can use in your email. The only people who can really use the headers to identify which email clients are in use are people who maintain very large ISPs. Although, even then, keeping track of the results of the IMAP ID command are probably more useful.
- Avamander 7y agoHope KMail and Protonmail get added as well.
- ktpsns 7y agoIt would be really nice to have a small and simple markup language, say some markdown standard, to be the layouting language for E-Mails. No (external) images, just links, lists, headings, basic formatting. HTML E-Mails are a security nightmare, even if "only" CSS is "allowed" and JS/iframes/external images are not loaded.
- gpvos 7y agoSomething like this? http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1896.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1896.txt
- ktpsns 7y agoThanks for the RFC link. Yes, basically. I mean, different mime versions of the same content are a possibility to do this transition: Send both plaintext, HTML and markdown, and the receiver could choose to display markdown if he otherwise would display plain text. To be honest, this won't come. Google is pushing AMP into mails, that's exactly the opposite direction.
- sjwright 7y agoIt’s so stupid. If AMP emai ever became a thing, every single non google email client would just fetch and store the contents of the AMP page the moment an AMP email arrives. So what was the point of it?
- rypskar 7y agoNot so sure about that, not downloading anything extra and only showing what is embedded in the email is one of the good things with using an email client. Using AMP email is back to thinking tracking pixels works in emails
- jlokier 7y agoIf the content isn't inline, perhaps it's better to have the mail server fetch it when the email is received, so that the sender can't track whether you are reading it. This has been discussed before with regard to external links to images. I think that always made sense, but it makes even more sense to do this when the core content is external. Then fetching it would be just another part of the SMTP/HTTP transaction sequence to deliver a mail.
- lozenge 7y agoIsn't it time for desktop clients to embed a real rendering engine? The isolation on them has reached a good level.
- canofbars 7y agoThunderbird had the best rendering engine of them all last time I checked with the microsoft ones being worse. Even if they did embed a real rendering engine you still have to deal with all those people using office 2010
- jcranmer 7y agoEvery GUI desktop client I'm aware of embeds a real rendering engine. The difficult one is Outlook, because Microsoft made a conscious decision that compatibility between Outlook and Word was more important than between Outlook and web browsers. I believe the Word/Outlook HTML engine was based on IE 5.5.
- chrismorgan 7y agoThe MSO renderer is a buggy and incomplete implementation of HTML 3.2, and I think high-DPI support is the only change of any substance at all in the last twenty years.
- lozenge 7y agoThey could switch depending on Doctype- it wouldn't be the first time they've done it...
- implr 7y agoKMail uses QtWebEngine, which is effectively Chromium.
- AgloeDreams 7y agoApple's mail clients use Webkit under it all, basically Safari, that's why the scores are so high. It's actually an interesting story, In the book `Creative Selection`, Webkit and Apple Mail were really Chicken and Egg-like, with the two being developed for each other with the HTML Editing logic in Mail being the basis of all text fields in iPhone.
- skissane 7y ago> This page ranks email clients based on their support among the 58 HTML and CSS features listed on Can I email. > (Because every test is done manually, some features might not have been tested on every email client.) I wonder, could they not create a single test email exercising all 58 features? Then one would just have to open the test email in a given client and compare it to a reference rendering. (Kind of like the Acid1/2/3 tests of yore.)
- grenoire 7y agoI would guess that there are certain unforeseen interactions between failed implementations, maybe certain ones prevent emails from being rendered etc. I suppose those could be documented as well, but would take a lot of extra effort to figure out the combinations.
- tln 7y agoI'm guessing the feature list has grown over time. Each time more features are added, 58 clients need to be checked.
- Lxr 7y agoWhy use HTML in emails though?
- omnimus 7y agoBecause mere humans like to have images, colors and text formating in emails.
- jobigoud 7y agoIt's convenient for underline, bold or italics in some long winded messages.
- swalladge 7y agoThat's why we have lightweight markup syntaxes like markdown.
- krapp 7y agoMarkdown is a lightweight syntax for writing and generating HTML, like BBCode. It's not an alternative syntax to HTML.
- Moru 7y agoMarkdown is designed to be readable without encoding it as HTML though, so is nicely readable on old email clients too.
- krapp 7y agoSure, but then it's just plain text, and plain text could be perfectly legible before Markdown came along. The only tangible benefit Markdown provides is letting people write HTML who don't like the aesthetics of HTML tags.
- swalladge 7y agoThe idea is that it gives a standard for semantic markup that can be read as plain text. Lists, highlighted text, block quotes, etc. that is all plain text but easily parsed by humans.
- ht_th 7y agoIt might be interesting to include "pine" and "mutt" as well, as a baseline of mail clients that do not support HTML out of the box. (At least with mutt you can set it up to automatically render HTML emails via "w3m") More importantly, though, I convinced all mail clients I use to just show plain text when viewing and writing my emails. Often there are HTML emails in which I do not see all the content, or content at all. For me this is nice because most HTML emails I get are spam, marketing related, or organizational nonsense.
- inops 7y agoI use Gnus in Emacs as my email client. I've got it set up to render plain text if available, but if the mail is only HTML, it will fallback to use Emacs' shr (Simple HTML Render) library. It's basic support, but works well enough most of the time to make the mail readable. Worse comes to the worse, I just open the HTML in a web browser. If I get to that stage, it's almost always spam or something else not worth reading.
- rinze 7y agoSame for me. I have a 'newsletters' folder which is the only one for which mutt will try to show me the HTML part first. Otherwise, it's plain text.
- fanf2 7y agoPine (or rather Alpine) does have HTML support built in and enabled by default.
- e12e 7y agoDoesn't (al)pine support html part out of the box (not sure, been a while since I used pine). I'd imagine support for more mime types that eg Gmail via: http://alpine.x10host.com/alpine/alpine-info/misc/mime.html http://alpine.x10host.com/alpine/alpine-info/misc/mime.html But I might be wrong. I thought both pine and mutt would handle html through w3m or something?
- grenoire 7y agoChrist on a bike, the state of Outlook on Windows is absolutely miserable. I knew it by experience when I started preparing HTML signatures for our company, but seeing the list makes me even sadder about the absolute state of incompetency caused by legacy systems in Microsoft. For those uninformed, Outlook on Windows effectively works on a terrible (and terribly old) implementation of HTML that was initially developed for Word from 2001 (or older, can't remember exactly). The Outlook ecosystem has to die.
- ndidi 7y agoEverything that discourages designers from doing fancy things is good in my book.
- burgerboy 7y agoYou're a fool
- grenoire 7y agoMicrosoft's history has shown time after time that both internal conflict and external enterprise clients' requests lead to random developers adding bits and pieces of non-standard features. This applies not only to Outlook but their other products (incl. Windows). It is goddam' Wild West out there and they clearly give no crap about how the standards outside of their universe evolve. Sorry Microsoft, but the PC world is not Windows-only anymore.
- enraged_camel 7y agoYou don't get it. Stuff like this does not discourage designers. It is what gets them jobs and keeps them employed. I've worked with marketing departments where it was a designer's primary job to make things look good on email campaigns.
- other_herbert 7y agoI had a recent request from a product owner to style the subject line... I said we can't do that and that I don't want to live in a world where senders can change the font or size of the subject in an email.... Can you imagine the crap we would have from spam in that case?!
- LeonM 7y agoCSS in email clients is a mess. Like IE6 on steroids. I switched to a Windows on my work laptop about 6 months ago, and the native Win 10 email client is probably the worst offender out there. Even the popular mailing lists (like IH, PH, etc) are completely broken to the point of unreadable in Windows 10 Mail. Mailchimp has a pretty good guides on how to create cross-compatible layouts: https://templates.mailchimp.com https://templates.mailchimp.com
- canofbars 7y agoFrom what I remember outlook uses the word rendering engine. Writing any kind of layout that works on all email clients is absolute hell. For most complex layouts it seems most companies just send it as an image with the text being the only other element
- ameen 7y agoAs someone who builds email regularly for Outlook - table based layouts work best, if you want to be fancy one could do some fancy VML stuff.
- dehrmann 7y agoLooks like they at least followed the IE pattern of having conditional comments. Embedding IE CSS hacks in one place (and possibly degrading the site) made working with IE almost tolerable.
- tannhaeuser 7y agoWill be very helpful in building an SGML DTD grammar for the HTML subset usable in emails, like I did with regular HTML [1]. CSS, though ... will have to wait for a little longer. [1]: http://sgmljs.net http://sgmljs.net
- svat 7y agoI'm just now trying to send some mathematics in an email (where most recipients will be reading it in Gmail), so I'm having to figure out what subset of HTML and CSS Gmail supports. (Found this reference for CSS: https://developers.google.com/gmail/design/reference/supported_css https://developers.google.com/gmail/design/reference/support...) It turns out that simply using MathJax or KaTeX and pasting the resulting web page into an email doesn't work: Gmail doesn't support SVG images (security concerns?), so one needs to convert images to PNG, but then converting every $n$ or $x$ into a separate image feels like overkill (the email would become huge and slow to load), so it would be nice to only convert expressions that “really” need it. It seems Pandoc by default has a mode where it converts only “simple” expressions and throws a warning on math that cannot be converted to simple HTML (using "em" and "sup" tags and a Unicode alphabet for things like ∑), so we can use this as a trick to identify which math expressions need conversion to images. Then if any of these images occurs inline, we need to figure out the baseline problem. And so on... Funny how trying to do the slightest thing with technology (send some mathematics over email) immediately turns into a research project.
- orf 7y agoHave you done any benchmarking on the sizes of the images? I cannot imagine a JPEG math expression, cached by google, is going to take an age to load when viewed in Gmail and not be that large.
- svat 7y agoThat's a good question. The actual size of the images is not large: the problem is that I can visually see the email take a while to load properly, even for an email containing just two PNG images that are 2941 bytes and 6333 bytes respectively. If nearly every sentence were to be interrupted a few times with such delayed-loading images, the reading experience would be rather poor. (This was with the images self-contained in the email, which seems to be implemented under the hood by having them be attachments and referring to them in the body, so the loading happens out of order... I haven't tried with the images being loaded as external images, but that has its own problems such as Gmail probably not loading them by default, or having to ensure the images will be available over the internet for as long as anyone might want to read the email which if you're sending it to a mailing list is ideally forever, etc.)
- tiborsaas 7y agoI'm all over for using cutting edge CSS solutions but when it comes to HTML email, I'm just: <h1>Hello</h1> <p>...</p> <p>...</p> <em>Thanks!</em> and it's done :)
- jorangreef 7y agoHow about this? Hello ... ... Thanks!
- LaGrange 7y agoI want to have embedded links, tables and images (but only ones that are attachments), which plaintext isn't sufficient for. On the other hand, I want _only_ that, and notably they all provide a nice and obvious client-side failover for TTY software without requiring attaching a 2nd copy of the text.
- tiborsaas 7y agoHTML in email helps readability, titles, lists, tables does help the recipient.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- DocTomoe 7y agoNothing that cannot more elegantly be solved by using MarkDown ... ... or common sense.
- jraph 7y agoI don't want to parse Markdown when I read emails. (and I don't have common sense either)
- KingMachiavelli 7y agoAs long as the varient of Markdown supports tables, vanilla markdown is laking in that area.
- gondo 7y agoI've used this guide to navigate email styling nightmare: https://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ https://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ And this tool to test emails before sending: https://litmus.com/ https://litmus.com/
- ukyrgf 7y agoCampaign Monitor's documentation has been the go-to solution for years. But I'm sure everybody working with email HTML already knows about it.
- Thomaschaaf 7y agoFor me discovering https://mjml.io/ https://mjml.io/ was the best thing as it takes away the pain of having to think about all the nitpicks of the different email clients and abstracts it into it's own little markup language. It supports responsive email designs and has many examples which you can alter to your needs. You can see the power here: https://mjml.io/try-it-live https://mjml.io/try-it-live the basic 15 line example expands to 188 lines of html so that it looks the same everywhere.
- mfontani 7y agoHave you tried https://zurb.com/ink/index.php https://zurb.com/ink/index.php ? Seems similar, and a bit older
- emilsedgh 7y agoThey are very, very different things. Zurb Email is like Bootstrap/Zurb Foundation, for email. They are common styles that apply to your HTML. MJML, in other hand, is not HTML. You write MJML, instead of HTML, and it compiles to HTML. It's really fantastic.
- mfontani 7y agoWith ink (well, inky) I write an email using things like "row", "columns", "spacer" etc. and then a process converts those to HTML+CSS, then another inlines the CSS. It doesn't seem much different to me.
- shrumm 7y agoI'm surprised to find no mention of MJML on this thread - it's more of a developer tool than a user facing one. You get to design your emails using a simplified markup language that resembles HTML, and it converts it into minified HTML that works pretty well on most email clients. Kudos to the guys behind it!
- emilsedgh 7y agoThis is the correct response and really needs to be upvoted for everyone to see.
- gotts 7y agoMJML is great. I think that https://www.caniemail.com https://www.caniemail.com in many cases would be a timewaster. Because you spend your time exploring each individual CSS/HTML feature availability and later on realizing something can not be done in fully crossbrowser/cross-email-client way. Instead you could just accept the limitation of MJML and start coding the final version right away.
- dennyjohnk 7y agoThis is good
- ggm 7y agoNot one mention of FLOW TEXT Issues. > Nor, the MS quoting issue. -G
- ggm 7y agoI got to use BBN Diamond https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc910 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc910 and it worked well. It was quite surprising to me when it turned out SGML failed and HTML succeeded.
- marban 7y agoAnyone wanna chime in on conversion rates when it comes to styled vs. plain text? I always hear that the latter converts better, i.e. "Make it look like as if it was sent by a friend" and obviously it's a business related matter but I wonder why plain isn't used more often when visuals/emotion aren't the #1 selling points.
- dansman805 7y agoI think images are used for marketing emails because spam filters are worse at detecting them.
- mrweasel 7y agoThinking in terms of "conversion rates" feels to me like the reason why we're in this mess. Email to me isn't about conversion and advertising newsletters. It's about written information, so there's no reason to even support HTML, in most cases. Arguably there's situation where an image will help in conveying information, or where a table will make information more readable. There's no situation where CSS is required.
- tatersolid 7y agoWritten information clearly benefits from bold, italics, ordered and unordered lists, section headers, etc. Normal people don’t really understand text surrounded by underscores or asterisks (I never receive messages with those constructs from non-technical people). Formatting lists or indented quotes (also common in “normal” email usage) using white spaces and other semi-arbitrary characters is tedious and brittle. The “rich text” features of HTML email definitely improve readability and understanding when used with restraint.
- Fice 7y agoIt is useful to have a way to represent structural and semantic information in email text (paragraphs, headings, quotes etc.), but not custom layouts and styling — that should remain under full control of the reader.
- 7y ago
- fouc 7y agoYou can use tailwindcss for emails as well https://maizzle.com https://maizzle.com
- bradley_taunt 7y agoThis is really helpful - kudos! Sidenote: you can always avoid the hassle of testing HTML/CSS across email clients by just using plain text. :P https://bradleytaunt.com/plain-text-emails/ https://bradleytaunt.com/plain-text-emails/
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- awestroke 7y agoI just use premailer[1] to automatically convert the email html I write to outlook compatible html 0.1 gibberish [1]: https://github.com/peterbe/premailer https://github.com/peterbe/premailer
- jrochkind1 7y agoI don't think premailer provides any solution for figuring out what CSS works with outlook or altering CSS to work with outlook? It mostly just, as it says, "Turns CSS blocks into style attributes". That is a different problem/issue than OP is about.
- collinmanderson 7y agoI'm starting to run into the emails themselves just being too darn large (over 1mb). There's no gzip with email.
- upofadown 7y ago>CSS The last thing I want is for someone else to control the appearance of my email...
- ken 7y agoGood news! The "C" means you can have the final word.
- sexy_seedbox 7y agoHave been using Cerberus since 2016 for responsive emails with no issues: https://github.com/TedGoas/Cerberus https://github.com/TedGoas/Cerberus
- andrei_says_ 7y agoThis is a gem. I created an in-house mail builder based on its styles.
- Melankolik-95_ 7y agohi good days
- 6d6b73 7y agoWhy using plain text is better: - readable under any mail client and any text editor - smaller size files - safer - better accessibility and compatibility with screen readers
- jraph 7y agoI don't get why plain text would be more accessible than a well-formed HTML email. A screen reader could say "this is a title", "this is a list item". In plain text, what do you get? "dash bla bla"? Though I hope screen reader are more intelligent than that, but it seems like a more complex problem than just using information given by a well-formed HTML text.
- 6d6b73 7y agoWell, plain text doesn't require smart or sophisticated screen readers. Anything that can read text will work, that's why plain text emails are more accessible. Not every person that needs screen reader can afford some top of the line device.
- megous 7y agoGive people HTML and most e-mails will be a complete undecipherable garbage on the markup level. Basically almost everyone puts anything there so that they get some visually pleasing result, the markup semantics be damned. One would think that lack of features of various mail clients would lead to using the lowest common denominator of some basic tags like b, i, a, hr, and maybe img. Not so in reality. One bank I've seen e-mails from even abuses invalid parsing of HTML comments, to produce whatever insane result someone somewhere dreamed up, like this: <!--><div style="some:crap"><!-->... Which is straight up invalid HTML, that sanitizing parsers like caja will reject. I had a fun of telling a client, that I will not purposefully break parsing algorithm of a HTML sanitizing parser just so that their customers can read mails from their bank. (Experiences from writing a web mail client to be used in a real world.)
- scbrg 7y agoA "well-formed HTML email" is about as common as a "functioning Communist state". I'm sure they're both great, and I'll let you know when I see one.
- guhbml 7y agoLearn about email related information networks
- asadkn 7y agoThis is very cool. One feature I'd like is the market share report that caniuse has for each listing. I currently rely on https://emailclientmarketshare.com/ https://emailclientmarketshare.com/ (by Litmus) for this but if someone's aware of a better data source, I'd like to know.
- jcranmer 7y agoTracking market share of email clients is very difficult. To capture browsers, all you have to do is beg server logs off of the largest websites, and you can derive statistics for your own user base by crawling your own server logs. But email? The usual way statistics are collected are by embedding 1×1 tracking pixels in email messages and noting who requests those images. But that will undercount any email client that has the option to refuse to load remote images, especially any one that turns that option on by default (such as Thunderbird). Another way is to look at the headers of large corpora of email, but the only ones that are publicly available are going to be mailing list archives, which will tend to have a more skewed distribution.
- hiccuphippo 7y agoI'm not sure if I want email clients to support more html&css. I kind of like them to be lighter and with less features. Actually, I'd prefer if they added something like CommonMark and removed HTML.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jcranmer 7y agoThis resource would be more useful if it also indicated support for relevant email-only features: * Blocking of remote resource loads * Which resources can be loaded via multipart/related and cid: links. * How are doctype-less HTML bodies loaded * "Leaking" of HTML parts in a multipart/mixed message
- ivanhoe 7y agoI've spent a year of my life working on a front-end for visual composer tool for emails, and it was a horrible experience, time-travel back to IE6 era. I wish there was some tool like this back then, I'd probably keep it open in a tab all the time. We desperately need for someone to finally win this mail client war and some standardization to emerge.
- lhorie 7y agoIIRC CampaignMonitor has had a pretty good resource for many years: https://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ https://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/
- ivanhoe 7y agoyes, them and Email on Acid were the best sources on what's supported where.
- andrewkdinh 7y ago> We desperately need for someone to finally win this mail client war and some standardization to emerge. Like all things, we need competition in this field. The Gmail web interface is already the most prevalent mail client. Because of this, Google can and has already started controlling the future of email. Just look at AMP for email. I agree with standardization, but not by having only one email client.
- ivanhoe 7y agoCompetition is good, but competition creates segmentation, and with mail clients it's already far more crazy than browsers ever were. There are huge differences even between the different versions of the same client, especially across the different platforms - and people still use some really old Outlooks, so you can't ignore them. I've been doing web dev for a long time, ever since the IE4 (there was still NN back then), so I've been through all the craziness of the browser differences, but this is far worse as many clients are rewriting the html and limitations are super strict, you have to inline everything and use all kinds of css hacks.
- greyhair 7y agoYou send me anything other than plain text in an email, and I don't already have a source filter for your address, it gets sent to a folder that I might look at if I have the time some day.
- andrei_says_ 7y agoHow do you filter for plain text (look)? Given that most clients will send html version along with the plain text?
- pembrook 7y agoSo you don't buy things online or travel or do your taxes digitally? 99% of important transactional email I get is HTML. Kind of nice to have your boarding passes and two-factor authentication emails easily visible.
- michaelmrose 7y agoNormally one does business on the website and then what one gets in their mail isn't an interactive utility running in their mail client but rather either some record of the transaction you will rarely need or a link to complete some activity on their actual website. Click this link to reset your password or some such.
- slrz 7y agoMost such mail tends to be not just HTML but rather multipart/alternative with an HTML but also a text/plain part. Luckily, HTML only (or its bastard cousin: including a text/plain part that is horribly broken or just says "please enable HTML viewing") isn't seen that often around here.
- Existenceblinks 7y agoMy goodness, this HTML in email things could cost you a job. I was burnout once by making 30 emails with variable layout work across popular email clients and screen sizes. Can I Email is definitely needed. But I will never do these fancy marketing emails ever again. Use plain text to communicate for your whatever incoming campaigns. Or if we really want HTML just use it without stylesheet, just plain tags.
- sitkack 7y agoNooooo! More plain text and less html. If we need to, lets define a strict subset, lets call it html5-lite and it will only have a handful of tags and two css modes that are not user definable.
- chrisnager 7y agoSuch a great idea. Thank you!
- philmander 7y agoI needed this 14 years ago
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y agoNo, you should not use any of these. You should only use plain text. https://useplaintext.email https://useplaintext.email
- MayeulC 7y agoJust wondering, what's your opinion on the flowed format? I like it when the recipient uses a smaller screen geometry (phones can be <80 col). And sadly, that page doesn't track this feature...
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y agoI've yet to use any software which supports flowed, as a sender or recipient. As a recipient I appreciate when flowed is done right and properly hardwraps lines as a fallback. Seems like a decent compromise.
- droithomme 7y agoUser feedback: I fiddled with this for a few minutes and could not make heads or tails of it.
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago> Can I email plaintext? > No results found. Why not suggest this feature to be added? It's worth sending a pull-request.
- ainar-g 7y agoPlaintext? Is that a new CSS framework? /jk Very few enterprises these days provide a “Text only, please” option in their E-Mail subscription options. Jira is, by all means, terrible software, but at least they do have this feature. I guess it's one of those situations where few people understand what it is and why you would want that. And even less people who care.
- jolmg 7y agoI wonder what content-types email clients support besides HTML and plaintext. Would any support mp3, mp4, markdown, org or odt? EDIT: Hmmm found this[1], and this[2]. They talk about using TROFF, TEX, Postscript, voice data, etc. I wonder if something like that ended up implemented somewhere. EDIT 2: I opened an issue[3]. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1049 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1049 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc767 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc767 [3] https://github.com/hteumeuleu/caniemail/issues/23 https://github.com/hteumeuleu/caniemail/issues/23
- ainar-g 7y agoE-Mails typeset in TeX sounds amazing! Right now you'd have to compile your TeX code to PDF/PS/DjVu and send that, which is far from perfect.
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoAnd imagine opening an E-mail that contains a PhD paper requires 15 minutes of compilation...
- WoodenChair 7y agoI don’t see emoji covered yet, but I have had real issues with gmail not recognizing some Apple-okay emoji or displaying them with extraneous symbols.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]