Intrigued by the different responses to these two ideas
Mon 2 Feb 2009, 10:37 AMTweet
by Ben Langhinrichs
It would seem to me that these two ideas would have similar appeal, but the response to one has been much more robust that the response to the other. I am curious whether that is because:
a) email fidelity is more important to people than web fidelity; or
b) web designers have pretty much abandoned using native rendering and control everything with pass-thru HTML; or
c) Gregg and I have both given lots more publicity to Gregg's idea than Lisa has to hers; or
d) none of the above.
So, while I'd encourage folks to vote for both of these ideas, I'd be very interested in whether Lisa's idea also is of interest to people (a potential AppFidelity product, perhaps?) Anybody have any opinion on what the reason(s) might be?
Copyright © 2009 Genii Software Ltd.
What has been said:
779.1. Colin Williams (02/02/2009 09:54 AM)
Aren't they more or less the same request? This comment made me think so; "For what it is worth, the same engine (with some specialization) is used for CoexEdit, which is, of course, available for custom apps. If IBM had the engine, they could use it in many places where rich text (CD records) to HTML or MIME, and HTML or MIME to rich text, are required. If they built their own engine, presumably the same would be true."
779.2. Ben Langhinrichs (02/02/2009 10:03 AM)
Colin - You might think so, but it appears that IBM currently has either two or four rendering engines (at least) already, so there is not the slightlest reason to believe that if they fixed this for mail, they would necessarily fix it for development. There are also a host of different issues with development that don't come into play with mail, mostly related to how to handle the differenc between read and edit mode, which are wildly different for development but not for mail. My comment meant more that the same core engine could be used as a starting point, not that it wouldbe the end point. This other request is that the development end point be considered as well.
779.3. Colin Williams (02/02/2009 11:22 AM)
Makes sense Ben, thanks for clearing that up. Probably need to link both ideas (not sure how?) and make a comment accordingly.