RE: HTML interpreter vs. HTML user agent

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> Not sure I understand -- does web mail have to turn off scripting?

I wish e-mail wouldn't use HTML at all, but that's another story.

I interpreted your question as asking if there was a description of the 
"restricted HTML" that Maciej describes, in the spec. Since the 
restriction is to disable script, that's what I pointed to.


> Is the only HTML that is suitable for transmission by email to a web 
> mail user one that doesn't rely on scripting?

I would presume that Web mail and regular e-mail clients would use the 
same kind of e-mail standards. It seems highly unwise to splinter the 
e-mail world based on the user agent used.


> How can I email HTML which uses <canvas>, if scripting is turned off for 
> web mail users?

It doesn't seem particularly wise to enable scripting in e-mail, but I 
suppose if one wanted to, there's no theoretical reason one couldn't do 
so, really. For Web mail clients in particular, the sandbox="" feature I 
mentioned in my earlier e-mail would be quite well suited to providing 
the control that a Web mail provider could want to have.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'