Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call

Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call

[mwoehlke]

Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
> PS First attempt of this email got kicked back because it had a
> text/html mime type alongside the text/plain.

You mean we actually do that? Sweet!

> Oh my god, that's the  end of the world, let me tell you.

Apparently it was not, as we're both still here.

> Can't your list server just strip the html version if you dislike html 
> so much? 

I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea. The 
point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and thus 
don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL) from continuing to send the 
stuff in ignorance; i.e. to force people to fix - or at least understand 
- their mailer.

> And even so, is HTML really so bad?

Yes. Many people (including me) hate it, it's a security concern, it 
leads to a non-homogeneous experience...

http://www.birdhouse.org/etc/evilmail.html
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml (and links)
http://www.vexen.co.uk/notes/htmlemails.html

> Wouldn't it be nice to 
> have syntax-highlighted code samples?

If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?), you 
have too much time on your hands.

For the record, GRC's newsgroup also rejects HTML messages (as well as 
anything over 20kb), so Cygwin isn't alone here.

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech

html email (was Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:11:27PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>PS First attempt of this email got kicked back because it had a
>>text/html mime type alongside the text/plain.
>
>You mean we actually do that? Sweet!

Yes, and as you surmised, it is a fairly good intelligence filter.

Btw, why move this topic to the cygwin-talk list?  As much as I think
it's a stupid discussion, it is on-topic for the cygwin list.

>>Wouldn't it be nice to have syntax-highlighted code samples?
>
>If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?), you
>have too much time on your hands.
>
>For the record, GRC's newsgroup also rejects HTML messages (as well as
>anything over 20kb), so Cygwin isn't alone here.

There are a lot of mailing lists at sourceware.org and gcc.gnu.org with
the same policy.

But, IMO, the technique of "I would like you to help me but, before I
do, let me tell you that the method you've chosen to allow me to do that
is really not to my liking" still seems like a pretty bad way of asking
for help if you are expecting results.

cgf

Re: html email (was Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call)

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:11:27PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>> PS First attempt of this email got kicked back because it had a
>>> text/html mime type alongside the text/plain.
>> You mean we actually do that? Sweet!
> 
> Yes, and as you surmised, it is a fairly good intelligence filter.
> 
> Btw, why move this topic to the cygwin-talk list?  As much as I think
> it's a stupid discussion, it is on-topic for the cygwin list.

Because, as you pointed out, it is a stupid discussion? My own instinct 
is to move anything that isn't Cygwin to -talk. This is about the list, 
not Cygwin itself. But it was a border area, so if I have anything 
purposeful to say I'll move it back.

>>> Wouldn't it be nice to have syntax-highlighted code samples?
>> If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?), you
>> have too much time on your hands.
>>
>> For the record, GRC's newsgroup also rejects HTML messages (as well as
>> anything over 20kb), so Cygwin isn't alone here.
> 
> There are a lot of mailing lists at sourceware.org and gcc.gnu.org with
> the same policy.
> 
> But, IMO, the technique of "I would like you to help me but, before I
> do, let me tell you that the method you've chosen to allow me to do that
> is really not to my liking" still seems like a pretty bad way of asking
> for help if you are expecting results.

No argument here. :-)

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech

Re: html email

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:02:42PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:11:27PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>>>PS First attempt of this email got kicked back because it had a
>>>>text/html mime type alongside the text/plain.
>>>You mean we actually do that? Sweet!
>>
>>Yes, and as you surmised, it is a fairly good intelligence filter.
>>
>>Btw, why move this topic to the cygwin-talk list?  As much as I think
>>it's a stupid discussion, it is on-topic for the cygwin list.
>
>Because, as you pointed out, it is a stupid discussion? My own instinct 
>is to move anything that isn't Cygwin to -talk. This is about the list, 
>not Cygwin itself. But it was a border area, so if I have anything 
>purposeful to say I'll move it back.

Ok.  I just think that sometimes points need to be made in the main list
and, because you were agreeing with me, these were obviously good points!

OTOH, if there isn't much more discussion about this subject on the main
cygwin list then your instincts were spot on.

cgf

Re: html email (gold star)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>OTOH, if there isn't much more discussion about this subject on the main
>cygwin list then your instincts were spot on.

Can I get a gold star over here OA..., er, Igor for someone who wisely
moved a discussion to the talk list when cgf unwisely didn't think it
was necessary?

cgf

Re: html email (gold star)

[Igor Peshansky]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >OTOH, if there isn't much more discussion about this subject on the main
> >cygwin list then your instincts were spot on.
>
> Can I get a gold star over here OA..., er, Igor for someone who wisely

You meant CKOA, didn't you?

> moved a discussion to the talk list when cgf unwisely didn't think it
> was necessary?

Done.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

RE: html email (gold star)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: html email (gold star)
> 
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >OTOH, if there isn't much more discussion about this subject on the 
> >main cygwin list then your instincts were spot on.
> 
> Can I get a gold star over here OA..., er, Igor for someone 
> who wisely moved a discussion to the talk list when cgf 
> unwisely didn't think it was necessary?
> 
> cgf

??? I did the same thing once and got "banned" (well, unsubscribed) for my
troubles.  Huh.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: html email (gold star)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:12:10PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> From: Christopher Faylor
>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: html email (gold star)
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >OTOH, if there isn't much more discussion about this subject on the 
>> >main cygwin list then your instincts were spot on.
>> 
>>Can I get a gold star over here OA..., er, Igor for someone who wisely
>>moved a discussion to the talk list when cgf unwisely didn't think it
>>was necessary?
>
>???  I did the same thing once and got "banned" (well, unsubscribed)
>for my troubles.  Huh.

You are one SERIOUSLY confused individual.

cgf

RE: html email (gold star)

[Dave Korn]

On 29 August 2006 05:36, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:12:10PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: html email (gold star)
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:08:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> OTOH, if there isn't much more discussion about this subject on the
>>>> main cygwin list then your instincts were spot on.
>>> 
>>> Can I get a gold star over here OA..., er, Igor for someone who wisely
>>> moved a discussion to the talk list when cgf unwisely didn't think it
>>> was necessary?
>> 
>> ???  I did the same thing once and got "banned" (well, unsubscribed)
>> for my troubles.  Huh.
> 
> You are one SERIOUSLY confused individual.
> 
> cgf

  Only one?  I reckon he's a committee!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: html email (was Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call)

[Dave Korn]

On 28 August 2006 20:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> But, IMO, the technique of "I would like you to help me but, before I
> do, let me tell you that the method you've chosen to allow me to do that
> is really not to my liking" still seems like a pretty bad way of asking
> for help if you are expecting results.

  Or, IOW, http://isbn.nu/0671723650 !

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: html email (was Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call)

[mwoehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 28 August 2006 20:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> But, IMO, the technique of "I would like you to help me but, before I
>> do, let me tell you that the method you've chosen to allow me to do that
>> is really not to my liking" still seems like a pretty bad way of asking
>> for help if you are expecting results.
> 
>   Or, IOW, http://isbn.nu/0671723650 !

"Hey! Where's the witty 'To:' field?" -- Hostess misquote :-)

-- 
Matthew
Ncurses. Blessing console programs since 1993.

RE: html email (was Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call)

[Dave Korn]

On 29 August 2006 15:47, mwoehlke wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 28 August 2006 20:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> But, IMO, the technique of "I would like you to help me but, before I
>>> do, let me tell you that the method you've chosen to allow me to do that
>>> is really not to my liking" still seems like a pretty bad way of asking
>>> for help if you are expecting results.
>> 
>>   Or, IOW, http://isbn.nu/0671723650 !
> 
> "Hey! Where's the witty 'To:' field?" -- Hostess misquote :-)

  Better?  :)

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: html email (was Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call)

[mwoehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29 August 2006 15:47, mwoehlke wrote:
> 
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 28 August 2006 20:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> But, IMO, the technique of "I would like you to help me but, before I
>>>> do, let me tell you that the method you've chosen to allow me to do that
>>>> is really not to my liking" still seems like a pretty bad way of asking
>>>> for help if you are expecting results.
>>>   Or, IOW, http://isbn.nu/0671723650 !
>> "Hey! Where's the witty 'To:' field?" -- Hostess misquote :-)
> 
>   Better?  :)

"Now that's the stuff!" ;-)

-- 
Matthew
Ncurses. Blessing console programs since 1993.

Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call

[mwoehlke]

mwoehlke wrote:
> Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>> Can't your list server just strip the html version if you dislike html 
>> so much? 
> 
> I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea. The 
> point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and thus 
> don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL) from continuing to send the 
> stuff in ignorance; i.e. to force people to fix - or at least understand 
> - their mailer.

Clarification: someone e-mailed me privately 
(http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PPIOSPE, btw) and pointed out that I meant 
"HTML *mail*" in the above sentence.

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech

Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:57:25PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>mwoehlke wrote:
>>Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>>Can't your list server just strip the html version if you dislike html 
>>>so much? 
>>
>>I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea. The 
>>point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and thus 
>>don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL) from continuing to send the 
>>stuff in ignorance; i.e. to force people to fix - or at least understand 
>>- their mailer.
>
>Clarification: someone e-mailed me privately
>(http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PPIOSPE, btw) and pointed out that I meant
>"HTML *mail*" in the above sentence.

Ahhhh...   I'm glad you clarified.  I was just busily changing the whole
Cygwin/Sourceware web site to raw text.

cgf

Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:57:25PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>>> Can't your list server just strip the html version if you dislike html 
>>>> so much? 
>>> I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea. The 
>>> point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and thus 
>>> don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL) from continuing to send the 
>>> stuff in ignorance; i.e. to force people to fix - or at least understand 
>>> - their mailer.
>> Clarification: someone e-mailed me privately
>> (http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PPIOSPE, btw) and pointed out that I meant
>> "HTML *mail*" in the above sentence.
> 
> Ahhhh...   I'm glad you clarified.  I was just busily changing the whole
> Cygwin/Sourceware web site to raw text.

Wow, I'm glad I MADE that mistake! It was worth it to read that. :-D

Excuse me while I look for something to soothe my aching diaphragm ;-). 
Dr. Hippo! Dr. Hippo! Do you have anything for sore diaphragms?

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech

Re: cygserver blocking on semctl(SETVAL) call

[Igor Peshansky]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 02:57:25PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
> >mwoehlke wrote:
> >>Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
> >>>Can't your list server just strip the html version if you dislike html
> >>>so much?
> >>
> >>I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea. The
> >>point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and thus
> >>don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL) from continuing to send the
> >>stuff in ignorance; i.e. to force people to fix - or at least understand
> >>- their mailer.
> >
> >Clarification: someone e-mailed me privately
> >(http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PPIOSPE, btw) and pointed out that I meant
> >"HTML *mail*" in the above sentence.
>
> Ahhhh...   I'm glad you clarified.  I was just busily changing the whole
> Cygwin/Sourceware web site to raw text.

Isn't making people cut-and-paste the links into their browser very much
in line with the WJM philosophy? :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: html email

[Ethan Tira-Thompson]

Resending as per Mike's PPIOSPE (not sure why the 'reply' to you went  
private, unless your original mail was private to me?  In which case  
PPIOSPE back-atcha :)

---------------------------

> I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea.  
> The point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and  
> thus don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL)
That's a matter of opinion.  And if you don't like HTML or consider  
it a security problem, just set your mail reader to ignore it and  
display the plain text, and those of us who want to see the full  
content of the message can see the HTML.  It's not that big a deal,  
I'm surprised to see so much religious zealotry here.

All of those links you provide are arguments against HTML-only  
email.  I agree that's a bad idea.  But when most mail programs send  
both plain text and HTML, the arguments are moot.  As long as the  
plain text version is there, what's the big deal?

For instance, you're right that it's non-homogenous.  But take that  
to its conclusion: some people want to use lynx to view the web,  
that's fine and there are ways to give them a usable experience (e.g.  
'alt' tags for images), but non-homogeneity isn't a good enough  
reason to deny the rest of us the full web page just because some  
people want to live in their console.  There's no progress in  
technology if everyone is held to the same lowest common denominator.

There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text  
in email.  I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich  
text crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.

> If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?),  
> you have too much time on your hands.
Standard?  Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing  
needs a standard?
In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain  
the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so, piping  
it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a lesser  
platform.

-ethan

Re: html email

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:23:24PM -0400, Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text  
>in email.  I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich  
>text crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.

There is a meta-issue implied by discussions like these.  You've entered
a zone where this kind of thing has been part of the culture for ten
years.  Obviously the people who run the sourceware.org site have strong
feelings about not allowing html mail.  What special qualifications do
you think you bring to the table which would sway someone?  Do you have
a lot of experience running a technical site like this one?  Are you an
expert in MIME?

FWIW, if you really want to bring about change, then the people who
decide about these things (I'm one of a handful of people with opinions
about this) hang out at the overseers mailing list at sourceware.org.

I can, again, say with very great certainty that none of them are
interested in changing the default for the site.

>>If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?),  
>>you have too much time on your hands.
>Standard?  Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing  
>needs a standard?
>In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain  
>the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so, piping  
>it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a lesser  
>platform.
>
>-ethan
>
>
>

Re: html email

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:23:24PM -0400, Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text  
>in email.  I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich  
>text crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.

There is a meta-issue implied by discussions like these.  You've entered
a zone where this kind of thing has been part of the culture for ten
years.  Obviously the people who run the sourceware.org site have strong
feelings about not allowing html mail.  What special qualifications do
you think you bring to the table which would sway someone?  Do you have
a lot of experience running a technical site like this one?  Are you an
expert in MIME?

FWIW, if you really want to bring about change, then the people who
decide about these things (I'm one of a handful of people with opinions
about this) hang out at the overseers mailing list at sourceware.org.

I can, again, say with very great certainty that none of them are
interested in changing the default for the site.

>>If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?),  
>>you have too much time on your hands.
>Standard?  Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing  
>needs a standard?
>In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain  
>the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so, piping  
>it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a lesser  
>platform.
>
>-ethan
>
>
>

Re: html email

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:23:24PM -0400, Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text  
>>in email.  I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich  
>>text crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.
>
>There is a meta-issue implied by discussions like these.  You've entered
>a zone where this kind of thing has been part of the culture for ten
>years.  Obviously the people who run the sourceware.org site have strong
>feelings about not allowing html mail.  What special qualifications do
>you think you bring to the table which would sway someone?  Do you have
>a lot of experience running a technical site like this one?  Are you an
>expert in MIME?
>
>FWIW, if you really want to bring about change, then the people who
>decide about these things (I'm one of a handful of people with opinions
>about this) hang out at the overseers mailing list at sourceware.org.
>
>I can, again, say with very great certainty that none of them are
>interested in changing the default for the site.

When responding to the above, please remember to remove the inexplicably
added extra mailing list address which caused me to double post.

cgf

Re: html email

[mwoehlke]

Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
> Resending as per Mike's PPIOSPE (not sure why the 'reply' to you went 
> private, unless your original mail was private to me?  In which case 
> PPIOSPE back-atcha :)

"Mike"? Who's "Mike"? :-)
As for your question, your question, a: because I can't set reply-to 
(AFAIK Thunderbird doesn't let you set it on individual groups, which is 
needed as I also subscribe to several non-Cygwin lists which would not 
be amused if my reply-to was a Cygwin address), and b: because I CC'd 
you, not knowing if you were watching cygwin-talk. Welcome! Watch for 
falling hippos. Anyway, yes I did send to you privately, but *also* to 
the list. :-) But no worries, you're here now.

And since you're here, I'll copy my reply (sans prior clarification) for 
anyone else's benefit.

> All of those links you provide are arguments against HTML-only email.

(Right, because I meant "HTML *mail*", as clarified above and in private 
mail :-). So I've snipped the bits that were only relevant to that slip 
on my part.)

> I agree that's a bad idea.  But when most mail programs send both plain 
> text and HTML, the arguments are moot.  As long as the plain text 
> version is there, what's the big deal?

Keep in mind that this is a *mailing list*, and there are additional 
concerns... like digests, archives, and that the list is proactively 
preventing people from abusing HTML for nefarious purposes. That, and 
you forgot the bandwidth issue.

> There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text in 
> email.  I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich text 
> crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.

In a word, bandwidth.

>> If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?), 
>> you have too much time on your hands.
> Standard?  Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing needs 
> a standard?

Oh? Funny, when I look at source, keywords are green, comments are gray, 
normal text is cyan, etc, and everything has a dark blue background. See 
what I mean? :-) There are many ways to highlight code, and not all are 
the same. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just pointing out that 
you and I may have different ideas on how it should be done.

> In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain 
> the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so, piping it 
> through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a lesser platform.

Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do 
this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech

Re: html email

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:55:50PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
> Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do 
> this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).

KDE is a lesser platform -
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2.0-development/ch19lev1sec2.html

Re: html email

[mwoehlke]

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:55:50PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do 
>> this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).
> 
> KDE is a lesser platform -
> http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2.0-development/ch19lev1sec2.html

Excuse me... Pun Police! Where are the Pun Police? :-)

-- 
Matthew
Ncurses. Blessing console programs since 1993.

Re: html email

[Sam Robb]

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:43 -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 03:55:50PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
> >> Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do 
> >> this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).
> > 
> > KDE is a lesser platform -
> > http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2.0-development/ch19lev1sec2.html
> 
> Excuse me... Pun Police! Where are the Pun Police? :-)

Ask, and ye shall receive...

http://www.galactanet.com/comic/268.htm

-Samrobb

Re: html email

[Cary Jamison]

mwoehlke wrote:
> Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>> In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain
>> the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so,
>> piping it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a
>> lesser platform.
>
> Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do
> this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).

Outlook will do that.  I was rather surprised the first time I saw it.

Can't remember what I was pasting from, though.  Probably VisualStudio.


Cary

Re: html email

[mwoehlke]

Cary Jamison wrote:
> mwoehlke wrote:
>> Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>> In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain
>>> the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so,
>>> piping it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a
>>> lesser platform.
>> Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't do
>> this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).
> 
> Outlook will do that.  I was rather surprised the first time I saw it.
> Can't remember what I was pasting from, though.  Probably VisualStudio.

Well, the "probably" is the interesting part. Whether or not Outlook can 
paste RTF (I already knew it can) is beside the point, the question was 
what editors ("probably Visual Studio") will put RTF on the clipboard? :-)

-- 
Matthew
Ncurses. Blessing console programs since 1993.

Re: html email

[Cary Jamison]

mwoehlke wrote:
> Cary Jamison wrote:
>> mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Ethan Tira-Thompson wrote:
>>>> In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can
>>>> retain the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even
>>>> so, piping it through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a
>>>> lesser platform.
>>> Never saw that; what editor do you use? Anyway, AFAIK KATE doesn't
>>> do this (and I *dare* you to call it/KDE a "lesser platform" :-)).
>>
>> Outlook will do that.  I was rather surprised the first time I saw
>> it. Can't remember what I was pasting from, though.  Probably
>> VisualStudio.
>
> Well, the "probably" is the interesting part. Whether or not Outlook
> can paste RTF (I already knew it can) is beside the point, the
> question was what editors ("probably Visual Studio") will put RTF on
> the clipboard? :-)

Oops, you did ask which editor he was using.  I just did a quick test of the 
various editors/ides I use that do syntax highlighting: jbuilder, 
activestate python, xemacs, visualstudio.  It seems only visualstudio 
supports this.


Cary

Re: html email

[One Angry User]

On a balmy Monday, the 28th day of August, 2006, Ethan Tira-Thompson's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> > I'm not sure silently stripping the HTML part is the right idea. The
> > point is to stop people that don't know what they're doing (and thus
> > don't understand why HTML is EVIL EVIL EVIL)
>
> That's a matter of opinion.  And if you don't like HTML or consider it a
> security problem, just set your mail reader to ignore it and display the
> plain text, and those of us who want to see the full content of the
> message can see the HTML.  It's not that big a deal, I'm surprised to
> see so much religious zealotry here.
>
> All of those links you provide are arguments against HTML-only email.
> I agree that's a bad idea.  But when most mail programs send both plain
> text and HTML, the arguments are moot.  As long as the plain text
> version is there, what's the big deal?

HTML takes up about 3 times as much space...

> For instance, you're right that it's non-homogenous.  But take that to
> its conclusion: some people want to use lynx to view the web, that's
> fine and there are ways to give them a usable experience (e.g. 'alt'
> tags for images), but non-homogeneity isn't a good enough reason to deny
> the rest of us the full web page just because some people want to live
> in their console.  There's no progress in technology if everyone is held
> to the same lowest common denominator.
>
> There's a well defined way to support both plain text and rich text in
> email. I don't see why the plain text crowd has to say the rich text
> crowd can't coexist when there's a viable way to support both.
>
> > If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?),
> > you have too much time on your hands.
>
> Standard?  Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing needs
> a standard?

The style that uses red comments and blue keywords doesn't need a
standard, it needs an eye doctor.  Yuck!  Everyone knows keywords are dark
purple and bold and comments are blue and slanted.

Oh, and don't forget to set the right font for the code, otherwise it
looks even uglier.

> In any case, when I copy and paste code from my editor, it can retain
> the syntax coloring.  It's very straightforward.  But even so, piping it
> through enscript isn't difficult either if I was on a lesser platform.

Ah, so now we're talking about Postscript mail?

Besides, the readability of most code I've seen would benefit much more
from proper indentation than from syntax highlighting...

OAU

Re: html email

[mwoehlke]

One Angry User wrote:
> On a balmy Monday, the 28th day of August, 2006, Ethan Tira-Thompson's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>>> If you plan to highlight your example code (and by what standard?),
>>> you have too much time on your hands.
>> Standard?  Keywords are blue, comments are red, that kind of thing needs
>> a standard?
> 
> The style that uses red comments and blue keywords doesn't need a
> standard, it needs an eye doctor.  Yuck!  Everyone knows keywords are dark
> purple and bold and comments are blue and slanted.

My point exactly. :-)

-- 
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech

Re: html email

[George]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:09:47PM -0400, One Angry User wrote:
> On a balmy Monday, the 28th day of August, 2006, Ethan Tira-Thompson's 
> computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
> 
> > > [...]
> 
> The style that uses red comments and blue keywords doesn't need a
> standard, it needs an eye doctor.  Yuck!  Everyone knows keywords are 
> dark purple and bold and comments are blue and slanted.

> Oh, and don't forget to set the right font for the code, otherwise it 
> looks even uglier.

These kids with their fancy text editors.  Syntax hilighting is for 
sissies.  Text should be green, on a black background the way God 
intended it to look.

> [...] 
> Besides, the readability of most code I've seen would benefit much 
> more from proper indentation than from syntax highlighting...

Only if you're using tabs with 4 characters per indent.  Otherwise, it 
makes things as hard to read as email from people who insist on 
indenting every paragraph of their email messages.  Go figure.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five 
minutes. 

-- 
George