First: I run a popular newsletter that uses custom HTML theming and CMS customization. I don’t work in marketing. I just genuinely think HTML in email is actually a value add. Not everyone you disagree with works in marketing.

Secondly: The problem you’re pointing at is bad implementation of standards, which is entirely on Microsoft and Google. (Mostly Microsoft.) The reason HTML doesn’t work well in email is because of bad prioritization, which has led to kludge upon kludge.

A website like this is not required. It's just nice to have. Somehow we've managed to use email without this website it for the decades that email has supported HTML.

Caniuse exists too, does that mean HTML and CSS are broken? Nah, it's just a useful resource to help people decide what tradeoffs to make.

There's a vast spectrum of HTML email.

Most people use it in the "bold a few things and make a few words into a link" side of things; more like the old .RTF format. The caniemail.com stuff is for the more complex stuff that might be better left to websites.

> clearly, it's not working if a website like this is even required. you say it is HTML compatible, then continue to tell me things in HTML are not valid for use. you say it can use CSS, then continue to tell me all of the valid CSS that cannot be used. so I'd suggest s/working/working*/ and then define the caveat as required.

That is not the point though.

The point is that the vast majority of people prefer transactional / marketing emails in rich formatting. They understand them better, they prefer interacting with them, it results in a better overall user experience.

Who creates all those transactional / marketing emails in HTML? Developers. Plenty of them.

All of them are in a difficult situation because writing HTML for sucks. It REALLY sucks. Tools like this one help them (the developers!).

Not using HTML emails is not an option in this field. It will never be as long as the average user (AKA the average customer) responds well to rich formatted emails.