Differences between HTML and Rich Text?

[Melody]

Hi,

I know that Rich Text message format provide a lesser
degree of formatting in e-mail messages than HTML. What
exactly is lesser? I've tried out and notice one such
difference is that Rich Text can't display pics in
animation.

Also, if I use Microsoft Word editor, regardless of
whether it is HTML or Rich Text, options offered appear to
be the same.. Are there any options that when I use with
Rich Text can't be shown at the reveiver end?

Thanks a lot!

 

[*Vanguard*]

"Melody" said in news:[email protected]:

Hi,

I know that Rich Text message format provide a lesser
degree of formatting in e-mail messages than HTML. What
exactly is lesser? I've tried out and notice one such
difference is that Rich Text can't display pics in
animation.

Also, if I use Microsoft Word editor, regardless of
whether it is HTML or Rich Text, options offered appear to
be the same.. Are there any options that when I use with
Rich Text can't be shown at the reveiver end?

Thanks a lot!

I'm not sure that "lesser degree of formatting" is really correct.
Don't use Microsoft's proprietary RTF (Rich-Text Format) unless you are
in a corporate environment in which all recipients can be guaranteed to
use the same Microsoft enterprise e-mail client (i.e., Outlook). This
isn't just my opinion. It is also Microsoft's recommendation. If you
want to guarante your recipient can read your message, and if you want
to better your chances that no mail server or router in the path between
you and your recipient will mangle your message, then use plain-text for
HTML format.

How Message Formats Affect Internet Mail
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=290809

If and only if you can guarantee that ALL of your recipients will be
using Outlook then configure your Outlook to send using RTF. Otherwise,
configure your Outlook to send using plain-text or HTML format. You can
still change the format under the Format menu to switch to RTF format
for those recipients you are sure are using Outlook. Also, configure
Outlook to reply in the same format as the that used in the original
message. It is considered rude to reply in a different format than
selected by the sender as they may not be able to read any other format.
Plus, if they send in RTF format then you get to use RTF in your reply
by default.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I know that Rich Text message format provide a lesser
degree of formatting in e-mail messages than HTML. What
exactly is lesser? I've tried out and notice one such
difference is that Rich Text can't display pics in
animation.

Another difference is that only those using Outlook as a mail agent will be
able to read your Rich Text messages. It's an Outlook-specific format.

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

To be specific, only Outlook users will be able to read the *formatted
version* of your rich-text messages. Outlook also includes a plain text
version of the message, just in case.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers

 

[Rob Schneider]

Don't use Microsoft's proprietary RTF (Rich-Text Format) unless you are

I don't think RTF is owned (property of) by Microsoft. My recollection
is that RTF is even older than Microsoft. I'm not sure who owns if
anyone does (IBM?), but I'm pretty sure it's not Microsoft.

 

[Noël Burgess]

I don't think RTF is owned (property of) by Microsoft. My recollection
is that RTF is even older than Microsoft. I'm not sure who owns if
anyone does (IBM?), but I'm pretty sure it's not Microsoft.

Extracted from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/graphics/fileformats-faq/:

RFT was developed by IBM for transfering documents between IBM and non-IBM
word processing systems. It is most commonly assocated with the DisplayWrite
word processor on the IBM 360, 370, and AS/400 systems. . . August 1986

RFT is often confused with the Microsoft RTF (Rich Text Format), which also
enables the portability of word processing documents between dis-similar
systems.

___

The Rich Text Format (RTF) standard [maintained by Microsoft] is a method of
encoding formatted text and graphics for easy transfer between MS-DOS,
Windows, Windows 95, OS/2, and Apple Macintosh applications.

The RTF standard provides a format for text and graphics interchange that
can be used with different output devices, operating environments and
operating systems. Version 1.4 of the RTF Specification contains all RTF
controls introduced by Microsoft applications through the release of Word
7.0.

RTF is often confused with the IBM Revisable-Form Text Document Content
Architecture (RFT), which also enables the portability of word processing
documents between dis-similar systems.

 

[*Vanguard*]

"Rob Schneider" said in news:[email protected]:

I don't think RTF is owned (property of) by Microsoft. My
recollection is that RTF is even older than Microsoft. I'm not sure
who owns if anyone does (IBM?), but I'm pretty sure it's not
Microsoft.

Rich-Text Format (RTF) is a specification defined by Microsoft. It is
THEIR proprietary format. See the following:

Word 2002 Documentation: Rich Text Format Specification
http://snipurl.com/57uv

Rich Text Format (RTF) Specification, version 1.6
http://snipurl.com/RTF_spec

I don't know if Microsoft has a patent on RTF. Didn't find one
mentioned in a Google search or from a quick search at the US Patent
Office. So, I suppose, you could modify Microsoft's specification to
come up with RERTF (Rob's Extended Rich Text Format) but you would be
guaranteed obscurity since no Microsoft product would support your
extensions, modification, or bastardization of THEIR document
specification.

Microsoft isn't doing a bad thing in providing a proprietary format.
PDF (portable document format) is Adobe's proprietary format
(http://snipurl.com/pdf_spec). Not all document formats, and I suspect
very few, are defined by a public workgroup or committee, like HTML and
XML.

 

[Melody]

Hi,

I've read the book "Running MS Outlook 2000" by Alan
Neiauer. In pg 84 it states that "Select Rich Text to
provide a lesser degree of formatting in e-mail messages
for recipients who e-mail software can't read HTML".

Yes, I'm in a corporate enviroment whereby everyone uses
Outlook which means all formatted are supported. But I
would like to find just what's the difference between HTML
and Rich Text in terms of formatting is the author
refering to? So that I know the differnces between
selecting HTML and Rich Text format.

Thanks.