There are endless arguments of should HTML email be used or not.
This article only deal with a single problem: if you want to author an
HTML email, for example, to satisfy a corporate visual identity
requirement for newsletters,
what difference does it make to author an HTML email than to author a
HTML webpage?
The difference is you need to stay compatible with a different set
of clients. So in the end you need a client compatibility checklist to
check against. Here is it.
There are several differences between HTML email and HTML web page that are commmon to all email clients:
http-equiv attribute doesn't work. Because HTTP protocol is not used.<title> element is not found in use in any email client.Yet there are a lot of differences between each email client on how they support HTML/CSS features.
| Client |
Gmail |
Microsoft Outlook 2003 | Mozilla Thunderbird 3 | Mozilla Thunderbird 3 as authoring client |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSS | Class attribute | NG |
OK |
OK |
Can be Prepared, only editable on selectable elements, they are:
|
| Styles defined by style attribute |
OK |
OK |
OK |
Ditto |
|
| Stylesheets embeded by <style> tag. |
NG (dropped) |
OK |
OK |
Can be Prepared, not editable |
|
| Stylesheets referred by <link> element |
NG |
OK |
Ask User | Loads or not depends on previous user choice |
|
| Images | <BASE> element | OK |
OK |
Ditto |
|
| Images attached in email |
OK |
OK |
OK |
By default images are attached in email |
|
| Images referred by external link in HTML |
OK |
Ask User |
Loads or not depends on previous user choice | ||
Images embeded (using data: URI) in HTML |
NG |
OK |
Can be prepared turns to attached image if sent. |
||
| Images referred in CSS | Same as images referred in HTML | NG Even if prepared, during editing image references are converted to anchors ( <a...>).
|
I am pretty sorry for this website lack of commenting feature, please write me an email if you offer new compatibility information or want to correct mine.