when I copy a url from a draft file storage, and enter it to create mail, and
then send it, the url doesn't activate in the received version. I need to
retype the url in the create mail stage in order for it to work for the
recepient. please advise

Thanks Rainald...I had this problem once before, and I thought that HTML
format was the solution, but I guess I got it backwards. Do you know why
text works for copies, and HTML doesn't?

"Rainald Taesler" wrote:

> govenordavid wrote:
> > when I copy a url from a draft file storage, and enter it to create
> > mail, and then send it, the url doesn't activate in the received
> > version. I need to retype the url in the create mail stage in order
> > for it to work for the recepient.
>
> Are you using the HTML format?
>
> Try it with plain text.
>
> Rainald
>

govenordavid schrieb:
> "Rainald Taesler" wrote:
>> govenordavid wrote:
>>> when I copy a url from a draft file storage, and enter it to create
>>> mail, and then send it, the url doesn't activate in the received
>>> version. I need to retype the url in the create mail stage in order
>>> for it to work for the recepient.
>>
>> Are you using the HTML format?
>>
>> Try it with plain text.
>
> Thanks Rainald...I had this problem once before, and I thought that
> HTML format was the solution, but I guess I got it backwards.

Does it work for you this way?

> Do you know why text works for copies, and HTML doesn't?

I do not *know* the reason. I assume that it's the way WinMail creates
the HTML code.

Rainald
P.S. There is a longer thread on this issue "creating a hyperlink"
started by "thunderbear" on March 10,
Message-ID: <BF630A06-39D5-4674-A2C0-(E-Mail Removed)>

govenordavid wrote:

>> P.S. There is a longer thread on this issue "creating a hyperlink"
>> started by "thunderbear" on March 10,
>> Message-ID: <BF630A06-39D5-4674-A2C0-(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> I looked at that thread, and I couldn't see why they didn't arrive at
> the same answer that you gave. Steve Cochran, the one who answers
> most, had a solution, but the Vista 64 version seemed to cause more
> problems. I miss not having different fonts from the the html, but
> everything sends in text so I'll just stay happy for now.

Great if this works for you!
I really don't see why HTML should be used fir mail a all - if one wants
properly formatted stuff, it's easy enough to ass a PDF attachment.

> I really wasn't that big of an Outlook fan. It takes up tons of space,
and
> almost impossible to comletely uninstall.

I also do not like Outlook. I'm forced to use it for Contacts and
Calendar in order have my computers and my PDA in synch.
But I hardly ever use it for mail (only in rare cases where I need a
receipt for a proper transmission).

Rainald
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
X Against HTML
/ \ in e-mail & news

One possibility is that the URL that does not work is a link to the file
local to your computer. That can and does happen.

I don't know what a "draft file storage" is so perhaps my comment is
irrelevant.



"govenordavid" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:09F0236C-D215-40B4-A4FC-(E-Mail Removed)...
> when I copy a url from a draft file storage, and enter it to create mail,
> and
> then send it, the url doesn't activate in the received version. I need to
> retype the url in the create mail stage in order for it to work for the
> recepient. please advise

HTML is a standard; PDF is not.

HTML can be used for free and there are abundant editors for it; many for
little or no cost and there is ample competition among the editors.

Perhaps I am uninformed, but it is my understanding that PDF editors are not
free and there is little or no competition among available editors.


"Rainald Taesler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I really don't see why HTML should be used fir mail a all - if one wants
> properly formatted stuff, it's easy enough to ass a PDF attachment.

Sam Hobbs wrote:
> Rainald Taesler wrote:

>> I really don't see why HTML should be used for mail at all
>> - if one wants properly formatted stuff, it's easy enough to
>> add a PDF attachment.
>
> HTML is a standard; PDF is not.

Right, HTML is a standard, but *not* for mail.
And PDF is a standard too, meanwhile.

> HTML can be used for free and there are abundant editors for it; many
> for little or no cost and there is ample competition among the
> editors.

Right. But *here* we are talking about mail.

> Perhaps I am uninformed, but it is my understanding that PDF editors
> are not free and there is little or no competition among available
> editors.

There's quite some free tools for creating PDFs.
My favorite is the OpenSource PDFCreator[
http://www.pdfforge.org/products/pdfcreator

And if one has Office2007, PDF creation is built in.

Rainald
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
X Against HTML
/ \ in e-mail & news

"Rainald Taesler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Sam Hobbs wrote:
>
>> HTML is a standard; PDF is not.
>
> Right, HTML is a standard, but *not* for mail.
> And PDF is a standard too, meanwhile.

We both know that about 99% of email that is not exclusively plain-text uses
HTML, which is described in RFC 2557. It does however include PDF, and I did
not know that it PDF is included in the RFCs.

>> HTML can be used for free and there are abundant editors for it; many
>> for little or no cost and there is ample competition among the
>> editors.
>
> Right. But *here* we are talking about mail.

Yes, and you were talking about HTML and PDF. So what are you trying to say
here?

Email software such as Windows Mail (which is what we are talking about,
correct?) supports HTML for messages but not PDF; or did I miss something?

>> Perhaps I am uninformed, but it is my understanding that PDF editors
>> are not free and there is little or no competition among available
>> editors.
>
> There's quite some free tools for creating PDFs.
> My favorite is the OpenSource PDFCreator[
> http://www.pdfforge.org/products/pdfcreator
>
> And if one has Office2007, PDF creation is built in.

Yes, I am behind a few years. PDF is described in Request for Comments:
3778. That RFC has a year of 2004 and I don't see that it supersedes another
RFC.

Office 2007? Office has supported HTML, including HTML for email, for many
years (and a few versions) before that.

PDF originally was proprietary and the software was buggy and
resource-intensive. Adobe was late to make it non-proprietary. PDF would
have been more successful if Adobe were to have not kept it proprietary. The
buggy condition of the software I am sure was another limitation to earlier
success.

Sam Hobbs wrote:
> Rainald Taesler wrote:
>> Sam Hobbs wrote:
>>
>>> HTML is a standard; PDF is not.
>>
>> Right, HTML is a standard, but *not* for mail.
>> And PDF is a standard too, meanwhile.
>
> We both know that about 99% of email that is not exclusively
> plain-text uses HTML,

I doubt that figure.
Quite some mails come with "RTF" (which is a totally different beast).
And both is a bad thing, IMHO.

> which is described in RFC 2557. It does however
> include PDF, and I did not know that it PDF is included in the RFCs.

Does this really matter?

>>> HTML can be used for free and there are abundant editors for it;
>>> many for little or no cost and there is ample competition among the
>>> editors.
>>
>> Right. But *here* we are talking about mail.
>
> Yes, and you were talking about HTML and PDF. So what are you trying
> to say here?

HTML can be used as format for editing a mail. PDF not.
And in my original posting I had been talking about adding a PDF as an
*attachment* instead of fancy formatting in a mail's body.

> Email software such as Windows Mail (which is what we are talking
> about, correct?) supports HTML for messages but not PDF; or did I
> miss something?

Right.
Nut HTML used in mails is not standard HTML - just to mention the
problems used by Outlook. And WinMail also has it's own variation.

>>> Perhaps I am uninformed, but it is my understanding that PDF editors
>>> are not free and there is little or no competition among available
>>> editors.
>>
>> There's quite some free tools for creating PDFs.
>> My favorite is the OpenSource PDFCreator[
>> http://www.pdfforge.org/products/pdfcreator
>>
>> And if one has Office2007, PDF creation is built in.
>
> Yes, I am behind a few years. PDF is described in Request for
> Comments: 3778. That RFC has a year of 2004 and I don't see that it
> supersedes another RFC.

Does this matter for the question if using PDF attachments instead if
formatting mails in HTML?

> Office 2007?

For sure!
The original idea if MS has been to deliver the Office 2007 apps with
PDF creation built in. This caused troubles with Adobe. Si they had to
leave out and they offered a "PDF/XMS" add-in for download.
But AFAIK with the SP2 for Office 2007 it's now included.

> Office has supported HTML, including HTML for email, for
> many years (and a few versions) before that.

And the implementation in Outlook was bad enough :-( :-(

> PDF originally was proprietary

Not really. The concept behind it (originally called "Carousel") was an
interchangeable format being usable on all platforms. And this concept
was really successful.
As to my knowledge in the business world at least 90% of documents sent
around come as PDFs. And in properly organized enterprise f.e. DOCs are
only sent in cases where the recipient shall be enabled to *edit* the
document.

> and the software was buggy and resource-intensive.

Which software are you talking about?
I have been heavily using Acrobat since its version 2. I can not confirm
that Acrobat would have been "buggy".

> Adobe was late to make it non-proprietary. PDF
> would have been more successful if Adobe were to have not kept it
> proprietary.

Free Readers have been available from the very beginning, IIRC.

> The buggy condition of the software I am sure was
> another limitation to earlier success.

As above.
But be it so, the success of the file format can not be denied.

But why are we discussing that?
My approach simply was to deny the need to use HTML and/or what in
WinMail is called Rich-Text (HTML) in mails.

I may seem old-fashioned but I stay with my device that plain text is
fully sufficient for any kind if mail.

Rainald
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
X Against HTML
/ \ in e-mail & news

"Rainald Taesler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> PDF originally was proprietary
>
> Not really. The concept behind it (originally called "Carousel") was an
> interchangeable format being usable on all platforms. And this concept
> was really successful.
> As to my knowledge in the business world at least 90% of documents sent
> around come as PDFs. And in properly organized enterprise f.e. DOCs are
> only sent in cases where the recipient shall be enabled to *edit* the
> document.
>
>> Adobe was late to make it non-proprietary. PDF
>> would have been more successful if Adobe were to have not kept it
>> proprietary.
>
> Free Readers have been available from the very beginning, IIRC.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf

Which says "Formerly a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an
open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International
Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008.".

It also says "rendering the files was slow on less powerful machines", which
indicates what I said about historical limitations to the success of PDF.

There are many other formats that are commonly used. SGML has existed since
the 1980's and was the required standard for contractors working with the US
government. I don't know if it is still the required standard but it has
been a standard for more than 20 years and PDF has been a standard for less
than a year. I assume you know the relevance of SGML to HTML.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgml