Composition and display are different problems.
Agreed, just saying that I'd like to do both.
Getting the reply setup from a format=flowed would address 90% of the
problem.
Well, _if_ someone is following RFC 3676 properly, we're actually pretty
good on reply. That text is something we can generally deal with.
It might be that it's enough also to just know how to specify that the text
is like that, and leave it to exmh/mh-e/vim-macros etc. to get it right.
You can do that today with the existing mhbuild directives. E.g, if you
put something like:
#<text/plain; format=flowed
in your message draft then everything afterwards will have the correct
MIME tagging. But that's not really the hard part; the hard part is
doing the wrapping/space stuffing/soft line breaks. Punting that to an
editor macro ... well, that seems lousy and unnecessarily complicated.
Also, it seems to me to basicaly be saying, "Screw you, hippie, you're
on your own". Really, we should be able to have users simply type
paragraph-split text into their editor and have mhbuild handle it
appropriately.
Hm, it seems that vim claims to support that, but a quick trial of it
didn't do exactly what I was expecting. Definitely not seamless. I was
looking at the mutt documentation for this, and it's not clear who is
responsible for what pieces there.
> RFC 3676 tells you how. But let's say you have some source code you want
> put in your draft; you probably don't want to have that set to reflow.
> So how do you indicate that? Something like mhbuild directives? Just
> thinking out loud here; what do others want to see?
I wasn't sure that format=flowed even made specific provisions for that.
Sure, just don't put soft line breaks at the end of text you don't want
reflowed; that's pretty straightforward.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers