Re: MIME variables

[Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

>     ("image/gif" mm-inline-image (mm-valid-and-fit-image-p 'gif handle))
>     ("image/tiff" mm-inline-image (mm-valid-and-fit-image-p 'tiff handle)) 
> 
> [...]
> 
>     ("text/html" mm-inline-text (locate-library "w3"))
> 
> Of course, I could just wrap all these in `lambda's, which would
> make things more better, although more verbose.  As well as making
> the magic `handle' dynamic variable explicit.

Please please do.  At the cost of a few more words, the code will be
much saner, and easier to replace with something else.

> > Also, the variable could probably stand a better name.
> > `mm-inline-media-tests' is, uhm, less than suggestive.
> 
> Well, they are tests to see whether media can be displayed inline...
> :-)

How about `mm-types-displayable-inline'?

> > > `mm-inlines-types'
> > >      This, on the other hand, says what types are to be displayed
> > >      inline, if they satisfy the conditions set by the variable above.
> > >      It's a list of MIME media types.
> > 
> > Maybe this should also allow a function, or a list of them.
> 
> The idea is that the first variable says whether something is
> possible, and if so, how to do it, while the second says whether we
> want it or not, so I don't see any need to re-specify a function
> here.  The first variable will probably not be altered by the user,
> while the second probably will be.

How about `mm-types-displayed-inline'?  :-)

> > > `mm-attachment-override-types'
> > >      Some MIME agents create parts that have a content-disposition of
> > >      `attachment'.  This variable allows overriding that disposition and
> > >      displaying the part inline.
> > 
> > I think this variable is misconceived, at least as far as
> > text/plain goes.  Many patches are rightfully sent out as
> > "attachments", and I don't get the button for them (I have to
> > press `K b' explicitly, which is quite slow.)
> 
> But patches shouldn't be text/plain, since they aren't...

Huh?

> > Mind you, it's perfectly fine for the type to be *displayed* by
> > default, but the button should still be there for attachments.  Broken 
> > software that generates bogus content-dispositions should not be
> > catered to.
> 
> I agree with that.  Perhaps I should just alter the default to
> exclude text/plain, and then the user who want to cater to such
> software can add it?

Please do.  I've asked for this before, but I guess the mail got lost.