Pros of transactional-email-templates

• More comprehensive set of templates, including responsive designs
• Better documentation and usage instructions
• Includes both HTML and plain text versions for each template

Cons of transactional-email-templates

• Less frequently updated (last update was over 2 years ago)
• Fewer contributors and community engagement
• Limited customization options compared to templates

Code Comparison

transactional-email-templates:

<table class="body-wrap" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; width: 100%; background-color: #f6f6f6; margin: 0;" bgcolor="#f6f6f6">
  <tr style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; margin: 0;">
    <td style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; margin: 0;" valign="top"></td>
    <td class="container" width="600" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; display: block !important; max-width: 600px !important; clear: both !important; margin: 0 auto;" valign="top">
      <div class="content" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; max-width: 600px; display: block; margin: 0 auto; padding: 20px;">

templates:

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
  <tr>
    <td valign="top">
      <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
        <tr>
          <td width="100%" style="padding: 0 0 10px 0;">
            <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
              <tr>
                <td align="left" style="padding: 0 0 5px 0; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; color: #999999;">

Both repositories offer email templates, but transactional-email-templates provides a more modern and comprehensive set of responsive designs with better documentation. However, templates has more recent updates and community engagement. The code comparison shows that transactional-email-templates uses more inline styles and a simpler structure, while templates relies on nested tables for layout.

Pros of responsive-html-email-template

• Simpler, more focused approach with a single, well-documented template
• Actively maintained with recent updates and contributions
• Includes inline CSS for better email client compatibility

Cons of responsive-html-email-template

• Limited variety compared to templates' extensive collection
• Less customization options out-of-the-box
• Lacks pre-built designs for specific use cases (e.g., newsletters, notifications)

Code Comparison

responsive-html-email-template:

<div class="container">
  <div class="content">
    <table role="presentation" class="main">
      <!-- Main content goes here -->
    </table>
  </div>
</div>

templates:

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
  <tr>
    <td align="center" valign="top">
      <!-- Content goes here -->
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

The responsive-html-email-template uses more modern HTML structure with semantic elements and classes, while templates relies on traditional table-based layouts for broader email client support. Both approaches have their merits, depending on the target audience and required level of compatibility.

Pros of mjml

• Provides a responsive email framework with a custom markup language
• Offers a component-based approach for easier email development
• Includes a CLI tool and integrations with popular build systems

Cons of mjml

• Steeper learning curve due to custom syntax
• May require additional setup and tooling compared to plain HTML templates
• Limited to email-specific design patterns

Code Comparison

mjml:

<mjml>
  <mj-body>
    <mj-section>
      <mj-column>
        <mj-text>Hello World</mj-text>
      </mj-column>
    </mj-section>
  </mj-body>
</mjml>

templates:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      <p>Hello World</p>
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

mjml uses a custom XML-like syntax that compiles to responsive HTML, while templates uses standard HTML markup. mjml's approach offers more abstraction and built-in responsiveness, but requires learning its specific components and structure. templates provides more flexibility with plain HTML but may require more manual work for responsiveness and cross-client compatibility.

Pros of Cerberus

• Focused specifically on responsive email templates
• Extensively tested across various email clients
• Includes detailed documentation and explanations

Cons of Cerberus

• Limited number of templates (3 base templates)
• Less variety in design styles and use cases
• Requires more customization for specific needs

Code Comparison

Cerberus (responsive table structure):

<table role="presentation" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
    <tr>
        <td style="padding: 20px 0 30px 0;">
            <!-- Content goes here -->
        </td>
    </tr>
</table>

Templates (more traditional structure):

<div class="container">
    <div class="row">
        <div class="col-md-12">
            <!-- Content goes here -->
        </div>
    </div>
</div>

The Cerberus repository focuses on providing robust, responsive email templates that work across various email clients. It offers fewer templates but with extensive testing and documentation. The Templates repository, on the other hand, provides a wider variety of email templates for different use cases but may require more testing for responsiveness across email clients.

Cerberus uses a table-based structure optimized for email clients, while Templates uses a more modern, div-based approach that may require additional modifications for email compatibility.

Pros of postmark-templates

• More comprehensive set of templates, including both transactional and marketing emails
• Better organized repository structure with separate folders for different template types
• Includes both HTML and plain text versions of templates

Cons of postmark-templates

• Less frequently updated compared to templates
• Fewer contributors and community engagement
• Limited customization options and documentation

Code Comparison

postmark-templates:

<table class="email-content" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" role="presentation">
  <tr>
    <td class="email-masthead">
      <a href="{{product_url}}" class="f-fallback email-masthead_name">
        {{product_name}}
      </a>
    </td>
  </tr>
  <!-- Email Body -->
  <tr>
    <td class="email-body" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

templates:

<table class="body-wrap" bgcolor="#f6f6f6">
  <tr>
    <td></td>
    <td class="container" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
      <div class="content">
        <table>
          <tr>
            <td>
              <h1>Welcome, <%= name %></h1>

Both repositories offer email templates, but postmark-templates provides a more extensive collection with better organization. However, templates has more frequent updates and community involvement. The code snippets show different approaches to structuring email content, with postmark-templates using a more detailed table structure and templates opting for a simpler layout.

Pros of Foundation-emails

• More comprehensive framework with a robust grid system and responsive design
• Includes a CLI tool for easier development and testing
• Offers Sass mixins for advanced customization

Cons of Foundation-emails

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex structure
• Larger file size, which may impact email load times
• Less variety in pre-built templates compared to Templates

Code Comparison

Foundation-emails:

<container>
  <row>
    <columns small="12" large="6">
      <h1>Hello</h1>
    </columns>
    <columns small="12" large="6">
      <p>World</p>
    </columns>
  </row>
</container>

Templates:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
  <tr>
    <td width="50%">
      <h1>Hello</h1>
    </td>
    <td width="50%">
      <p>World</p>
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

Foundation-emails uses a more semantic structure with custom elements, while Templates relies on traditional table-based layouts. Foundation-emails offers more flexibility for responsive designs, but Templates may be easier to understand for developers familiar with older email coding practices.