 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Outlook / New Users / January 2005Rich Text vs. HTML (again)
In Outlook 2002, I use Rich Text as my default format for new mail. I believe the default is HTML format. I know some here advocate plain text only, but the formatting options offered in Rich Text and HTML are useful for my purposes. I switched from HTML to Rich Text because I found that editing in HTML is very quirky -- line spacing, paragraph formatting, etc., often don't behave the way I expect. Composing or editing an email in Rich Text, on the other hand, is fairly trouble-free. I've seen a lot of messages in this group from MVPs advising people not to use Rich Text because it generates a .dat file attachment to external (Internet) recipients who don't use Outlook. I think, though, that Outlook 2002 has a simple solution. There's an option to convert Rich Text mail to HTML when sending to Internet recipients. (This option is located through Tools / Options / Mail Format tab / Internet Format button.) It seems to me that with this configuration, I can continue to compose mail in RTF and not bother anyone with .dat attachments. Indeed, though I've operated this way for several months, I've yet to hear a complaint about a .dat file (nor any about HTML either). Is there a problem with this approach that I've overlooked? No. That should be a fine solution in most cases.  SignatureSue Mosher, Outlook MVP Author of Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for Administrators, Power Users, and Developers http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx > In Outlook 2002, I use Rich Text as my default format for new mail. I > believe the default is HTML format. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > about a .dat file (nor any about HTML either). > Is there a problem with this approach that I've overlooked? > That should be a fine solution in most cases. Sue, Why did you qualify your answer with "in most cases"? I'm not trying to be difficult -- I just want to understand the potential downside, because I don't want to inconvenience any of my customers. Thanks, Michael I don't know what the question was, much less the answer, since you didn't quote the earlier posts. SignatureSue Mosher, Outlook MVP Author of Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for Administrators, Power Users, and Developers http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx >> That should be a fine solution in most cases. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > Michael > I don't know what the question was, much less the answer, since you > didn't quote the earlier posts. mreidco@yahoo.com <mreidco@yahoo.com> wrote: > In Outlook 2002, I use Rich Text as my default format for new mail. I > believe the default is HTML format. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > complaint about a .dat file (nor any about HTML either). > Is there a problem with this approach that I've overlooked? SignatureBrian Tillman > No. That should be a fine solution in most cases. Why did you qualify your answer with "in most cases"? I'm not trying to be difficult -- I just want to understand the potential downside, because I don't want to inconvenience any of my customers. --Michael [Full text of original question and response below] > No. That should be a fine solution in most cases. > > -- > Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP > > In Outlook 2002, I use Rich Text as my default format for new mail. I > > believe the default is HTML format. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > about a .dat file (nor any about HTML either). > > Is there a problem with this approach that I've overlooked? I've learned never to say always or never when it comes to Outlook. It's quite possible that there's some layout feature that doesn't translate well by the automatic converter. That setting also may prevent you from using Outlook custom forms, task requests and actual Outlook meeting requests across the Internet, although you can still use iCalendar meeting requests. SignatureSue Mosher, Outlook MVP Author of Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for Administrators, Power Users, and Developers http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx >> No. That should be a fine solution in most cases. > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> > about a .dat file (nor any about HTML either). >> > Is there a problem with this approach that I've overlooked? <snip> > I've learned never to say always or never when it comes to Outlook. It's > quite possible that there's some layout feature that doesn't translate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > requests and actual Outlook meeting requests across the Internet, although > you can still use iCalendar meeting requests. An ongoing difficulty I have experienced due to the use of Rich Text/HTML formats for e-mail is that images can be "lost in translation" when sending to MSOE users - and this is very confusing and difficult to rectify. Can you explain what format is reliable in transmitting inline images so that they arrive intact? Thanks, WjP What kind of problems are you seeing? If it were my message and I wanted the image to stay in one place, I'd use an HTML table with strict height and width settings on the cells. SignatureSue Mosher, Outlook MVP Author of Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for Administrators, Power Users, and Developers http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx > An ongoing difficulty I have experienced due to the use of Rich Text/HTML > formats for e-mail is that images can be "lost in translation" when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can you explain what format is reliable in transmitting inline images so > that they arrive intact? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.