Make UI messages about HTML more understandable.

portion based on mpt's comment in bug 28735

I think the gain in understanding by explaining that HTML is a richer text format than plain text is more than offset by the fact that no one wants to read through these giant dialogs just to send a message.

> When sending messages in HTML format and one or more > recipients are not listed as being able to receive HTML and > If you know a particular recipient can receive HTML mail, > uncheck the 'Send email as plain text (no HTML)' checkbox > on the recipient's Address Book card need to be changed as in Mozilla T-Bird and Mozilla Messenger the address book has a drop-down menu for "preferred format", not check boxes. change to: When sending HTML (rich-text) messages and one or more recipients are listed as preferring plain text. If you know a particular recipient can receive HTML mail, set the preferred format to "HTML (rich-text) on the recipient's Address Book card shorter now :-)

Imho those who don´t understand what HTML means also don´t understand what plain text means, if they would do, they would choose HTML if they didn´t want plain text. Also imho RTF ( Rich Text Format, I´ve never used it) is a safe text format, not a security risk like .doc, .htm, .html, .... I´m thinking this patch adds to the confusion, instead of clarification of fact. Imho plain text (why plain?) is understandable, if you want something more, you can choose the other option, at your own risk. With "RichText" you are propagating the use of HTML Mail, imho one of the biggest security risks. Maybe Mozilla gets it right, with sanitized HTML displayed, but what do you do if a there is a bug? People loving choice (technically) understand most of the preferences of mozilla, those thinking configure options are bloat are choosing Firebird, and for those the patch introduces bloat, too much words. Maybe this patch is needed for Thunderbird as companion, but I´m not sure. To close my rant, I like the difference of Mozilla and Firebird, there is need for both. But don´t try to underestimate the brain of mozilla users.

Comment on attachment 133600 [details] [diff] [review] Patch for Thunderbird (2nd try) I don't think this is the right thing to do. I prefer what we have now without using the words rich-text, that will make some users think .rtf files

I agree this would not be good; it could create confusion with RTF (which is what Outlook uses if you select "rich text" format; Outlook calls HTML "HTML").

sorry for the spam. making bugzilla reflect reality as I'm not working on these bugs. filter on FOOBARCHEESE to remove these in bulk.

Filter on "Nobody_NScomTLD_20080620"

Wontfix per Scott's comment 8: superreview- for the idea. Other comments also agree. Users who are actually changing these settings will understand the meaning of HTML without further explanation. Adding (Rich text) whereever we have HTML can even cause confusion with the actual Rich-Text format (.rtf). Respective descriptions in the UI are already pretty long and not always easy to understand, so we won't make them even longer and harder to read. Patches are obsolete. Nobody ever cared or commented in favor since 2003, no duplicates, 1 lonely vote.