7 ms·

I'm expecting "this email designed for gmail" badges soon.

• icebraining 13y ago
  Both Microdata and JSON-LD are open formats.
  • pfortuny 13y ago
    As is HTML and it provides little benefits to a lot of ordinary people and a lot to a lot of rogues. The fact that it is open does not imply it needs either to be supported (does gmail support S/MIME, by the way?) or that it is convenient.
    • calinet6 13y ago
      ... HTML? You're joking, right?
      • pfortuny 13y ago
        Not that I know of. Why? Links? Phishing would be much different if people read links instead of the <a> label. Images? Really? Just attach them and do not add clutter to the message. Edit: did I say something wrong? Really?
        • kbenson 13y ago
          There is a large disconnect between people that use/default HTML on in their mail clients, and people that don't. Additionally, as always, people take it as an attack against themselves when you threaten an action they do often and like doing. For my (probably our?) part, I prefer text email to a large degree. I do enjoy the ability to view in HTML a few select correspondences I get, but they could just as easily be links to a webpage. In a similar vein, I prefer bottom posting or inline replies for anything beyond a simple response, and trimming unused portions from large quoted sections. People that reply with color coded text to denote who's speaking cause me a unique type of pain, and I reserve a unique type of hatred for them. That said, there are probably others that I annoy with my style of correspondence.
          • sixbrx 13y ago
            > People that reply with color coded text to denote who's speaking cause me a unique type of pain Not all of us do it on purpose, sometimes it's Outlook helpfully changing our text color to blue after we've copy/pasted from some text from a correspondent. I usually notice this right after I send. Sometimes if someone has a name that's unusual to me, you can tell I had to copy/paste it because it's blue and the rest is black. Always love that one.
            • kbenson 13y ago
              A solution to this seems to be to set the default composition to plain text, which may or may not have other negative consequences depending on your usage. At least that's a solution in Thunderbird, I have no idea if Outlook handles this well (or at all), and any caveats it may have. I imagine it does handle it, Outlook has historically been pretty feature heavy and I know people would have asked for this.
            • jacalata 13y ago
              I think he's referring to people who give no indications for who is being quoted/if the text is their response, /except/ different colors. Its pretty hard to do this without noticing - if you aren't seeing different colors, you should be adding (Tom) or whatever to mark who said what.
        • calinet6 13y ago
          Sorry—I was reading into it as an analogy outside the context of e-mail: I initially interpreted it as a slight on the entire HTML technology. Making more sense now, sorry for the confusion!
          • pfortuny 13y ago
            I see and I understand. Not to worry. It looked lime some weird misunderstanding since the beginning.
  • munimkazia 13y ago
    The data format is open, but no other client will read and interpret these inbox actions
    • lawdawg 13y ago
      nothing stopping them from doing so.
    • eli 13y ago
      Isn't that how most features are added? One client supports them and others follow?
  • makomk 13y ago
    The format may be open, the ability to use it isn't - you need to register with Google[1] or they won't display actions on your e-mail. This appears to be necessary for security reasons. Imagine if every e-mail provider did the same thing! [1] https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/registering-with-google https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/registering-with...
    • icebraining 13y ago
      That's bad, yes, and I wish they didn't require that, but it doesn't hinder the use of the protocol outside of their services, which is the most important thing. It just adds some extra work to the senders.
      • jacalata 13y ago
        To hinder: to add difficulty. I'd say it certainly does hinder use of the protocol.
        • icebraining 13y ago
          "doesn't hinder the use of the protocol outside of their services"
        • dragonwriter 13y ago
          > > it doesn't hinder the use of the protocol outside of their services > To hinder: to add difficulty. I'd say it certainly does hinder use of the protocol. How does Google requiring registration before actions are displayed in Google properties hinder use of the schemas in email outside of Google services?
          • ars 13y ago
            Because just like google needs people to register for security, so do other providers. This rapidly becomes unwieldy - how are you going to convince people to register with tons of providers? So this format is pretty much google only.
• pornel 13y ago
  The feature appears to be independently implementable in other clients, so if it takes off and those badges start appearing, then other e-mail clients can follow. And some "designed for gmail" badges may actually be a good thing — maybe that would force Microsoft to do something with grotesque HTML rendering in the latest Outlook.
  • kyrra 13y ago
    MS uses the Word HTML engine in Outlook since Office 2007. As well, CSS (even inlined) support when viewing mail seems to be pretty bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_rendering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_renderin...
    • MrDOS 13y ago
      Campaign Monitor has a pretty great table[1] describing what's supported where. [1] http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/
• brudgers 13y ago
  "This email best viewed in Chrome."