Re: Numbering invisible parts

[Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:
> 
> > Randal's recent message reminded me of my pet peeve with the MIME
> > numbering system: If most of the buttons are hidden, why are they
> > numbered?  I find it highly confusing that the visible buttons have
> > non-contiguous numbers, like 2, 3, 8, 15, ...
> 
> I find it highly useful that the numbers indicate that there are
> other hidden buttons.

Why would you want the hidden buttons being "indicated"?  Their
corresponding parts are shown in the message.  For example, Randal's
GIF was numbered 2 instead of 1, because there was preceding text.  I
guess you could call the preceding text a "hidden button", but I don't
see the point of numbering it explicitly.

If for you non-contiguous button numeration is an indicator of
unbuttonized MIME parts, then it's a very bad indicator, because in
most cases it doesn't show anything at all.


Another reason why not numbering hidden buttons would be useful: In
the usual case, there is only one attachment in a message; with my
proposed change, you could simply press `b' to activate it.  As things
are now, you have to press `2 b', or `3 b', or...