Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Outlook 2007, Re-setting the standard for e-mail to 1995
I've heard two 'public' MS responses for changing the way Outlook handles HTML e-mail:
1. Due to increased security risks, MS has replaced the Internet Explorer HTML rendering engine with the MS Word rendering engine.
2. Due to inconsistencies between HTML e-mail authoring via the Word engine and HTML e-mail rendering via the IE engine, Outlook is going to use a single engine being Word.
The result of which translates to the following:
* Images Off as default
* no support for background images (HTML or CSS)
* no support for forms
* no support for Flash, or other plugins
* no support for CSS floats
* no support for replacing bullets with images in unordered lists
* no support for CSS positioning
* no support for animated GIF
Consistency?
I think this is MS Spin as I don't accept that a company with resources, market share and vision would allow a lessor feature set to replace a greater feature set for something as soft as inconsistencies. And if it were really the case, you'd build to the better feature set. What I find interesting is the open acknowledgment that there are two engines, that they don't work much alike and its become a problem. "Left hand meet right hand."
IE is Dangerous?
If it is really due to increased security risks, then IE is the root of these security issues and should not be trusted. That's bad considering how dependent Windows is on IE. And what about people that use IE on the web? Are these security issues left unchecked?
Legal Liability?
The legal buff in me says MS is taking a path of least resistance by not fixing security but rather limiting its liability. E-mail is received and Windows users could be exposed to security threats by no action of their own - a bad legal scenario. While browsing is an active action thereby relieving MS of legal liability. "Hey, you should know better than go to a web site which had mal-ware associated to it." If you recall, previously to last year's Gif Vulnerability, users had to actually choose to open an attachment in e-mail. But those simple days are gone and MS's legal liability could be the motivating factor.
Patent Infringement?
Its possible that last year's IE 'upgrade' for handling plug-ins, which is a direct result of a MS's patent infringement, could not be translated to Outlook. Although the weakest explanation, still a possibility.
Anti-competition?
One blogger I read posted the idea that this was the only way to keep revenue from Apple Outlook customers since MS stopped supporting IE for Mac last year. Why did MS stop supporting Apple IE?
Forced Upgrades?
In all the reading I've done, I have not found anyone that has been able to answer the question of "what if someone does not have Word?"
I like this perfect storm scenario: force upgrades to a faltering product line in Office and reduced liability all in the guise of security. Good enough for Washington, DC or Redmond.
-- Web Conferencing - Sign up for a free trial at http://www.isatvideo.com.
1. Due to increased security risks, MS has replaced the Internet Explorer HTML rendering engine with the MS Word rendering engine.
2. Due to inconsistencies between HTML e-mail authoring via the Word engine and HTML e-mail rendering via the IE engine, Outlook is going to use a single engine being Word.
The result of which translates to the following:
* Images Off as default
* no support for background images (HTML or CSS)
* no support for forms
* no support for Flash, or other plugins
* no support for CSS floats
* no support for replacing bullets with images in unordered lists
* no support for CSS positioning
* no support for animated GIF
Consistency?
I think this is MS Spin as I don't accept that a company with resources, market share and vision would allow a lessor feature set to replace a greater feature set for something as soft as inconsistencies. And if it were really the case, you'd build to the better feature set. What I find interesting is the open acknowledgment that there are two engines, that they don't work much alike and its become a problem. "Left hand meet right hand."
IE is Dangerous?
If it is really due to increased security risks, then IE is the root of these security issues and should not be trusted. That's bad considering how dependent Windows is on IE. And what about people that use IE on the web? Are these security issues left unchecked?
Legal Liability?
The legal buff in me says MS is taking a path of least resistance by not fixing security but rather limiting its liability. E-mail is received and Windows users could be exposed to security threats by no action of their own - a bad legal scenario. While browsing is an active action thereby relieving MS of legal liability. "Hey, you should know better than go to a web site which had mal-ware associated to it." If you recall, previously to last year's Gif Vulnerability, users had to actually choose to open an attachment in e-mail. But those simple days are gone and MS's legal liability could be the motivating factor.
Patent Infringement?
Its possible that last year's IE 'upgrade' for handling plug-ins, which is a direct result of a MS's patent infringement, could not be translated to Outlook. Although the weakest explanation, still a possibility.
Anti-competition?
One blogger I read posted the idea that this was the only way to keep revenue from Apple Outlook customers since MS stopped supporting IE for Mac last year. Why did MS stop supporting Apple IE?
Forced Upgrades?
In all the reading I've done, I have not found anyone that has been able to answer the question of "what if someone does not have Word?"
I like this perfect storm scenario: force upgrades to a faltering product line in Office and reduced liability all in the guise of security. Good enough for Washington, DC or Redmond.
-- Web Conferencing - Sign up for a free trial at http://www.isatvideo.com.
