What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Sander Boer]

Hi all,

I notice quite a few people in this group use X-Face headers, but I read
that these are regarded to be antequated.
I personally would like to use one of these methods of unnecessary
embelishments that bulk up your email header, heck , it's still better
than anything outlook produces...

What I would like to know is what the good people in this group think of
the methods for these unnecessary embelishments: devil's spawn, don't
care or waiting for a better solution ?

thx

-- 
Sander Boer
......................................................................

An exotic journey in downtown Newark is in your future.

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Julien Danjou]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 28 2011, Sander Boer wrote:

> I notice quite a few people in this group use X-Face headers, but I read
> that these are regarded to be antequated.

They are and there are supported by a very few MUA… Actually I don't
know any other thing than Gnus that supports it currently, but there
might be.

> What I would like to know is what the good people in this group think of
> the methods for these unnecessary embelishments: devil's spawn, don't
> care or waiting for a better solution ?

Don't care, but Gravatar is now quite a de-facto standard… Not that it's
good to use a centralized service, but well, for now, that does the job
and people use it… :)

-- 
Julien Danjou
❱ http://julien.danjou.info

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Sander Boer]

>>>>> "JD" == Julien Danjou <julien@danjou.info> writes:

...[14 lines removed]...
    JD| Don't care, but Gravatar is now quite a de-facto standard… Not
    JD| that it's good to use a centralized service, but well, for now,
    JD| that does the job and people use it… :)

...[3 lines removed]...

Ok, Gravatar it is then.


-- 
Sander Boer
......................................................................

Are you making all this up as you go along?

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:06:17 +0200, Julien wrote:

> Don't care, but Gravatar is now quite a de-facto standard… Not that it's
> good to use a centralized service, but well, for now, that does the job
> and people use it… :)

Has anyone looked at supporting X-Image-Url:?

I don't think I have ever seen one in the wild, but as a supplement to
Gravatar-support, it might make sense?


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Good car to drive after a war"                              Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:59:52 +0200, Adam wrote:

> Has anyone looked at supporting X-Image-Url:?

> I don't think I have ever seen one in the wild, but as a supplement to
> Gravatar-support, it might make sense?

Another thing I've found myself wanting is to be able to prioritize the
view of these types pictures.

Something like:

 * Show Face if it is there, if not:
 * Show X-Face if it is there, if not:
 * Show X-Image-Url if it is there, if not:
 * Show Gravatar if it is there, if not:
 * Show picons.

If people have a Face/X-Face header currently, I see that and the
Gravatar as well, which (in my eyes) is redundant.

Oh, the gravity of these big issues.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Good car to drive after a war"                              Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

X-Image-Url support

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:59:52 +0200, Adam wrote:

> Has anyone looked at supporting X-Image-Url:?

I have tried implementing support for X-Image-Url: by copy/paste-coding
looking at Julien Danjou's gravatar support.

I have got it working, somewhat; (I haven't looked into caching and
handling -too-ugly, but) the primary problem I have is:

 * How do I get the value of a header that is hidden?

By mimicking gnus-gravatar.el, I am using something to the effect of:

  (gnus-with-article-headers
    (let* ((url (mail-fetch-field "X-Image-Url")))

To get the URL, but this only works if I have X-Image-Url in
gnus-visible-headers, which I don't really fancy...

I tried looking at how Face and X-Face are handled, but that code seemed
way complicated.

Isn't there an easy was to ask for a header that may or may not be
hidden?


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Vi är små citroner"                                         Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: X-Image-Url support

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:

> Isn't there an easy was to ask for a header that may or may not be
> hidden?

(with-current-buffer gnus-original-article-buffer
  (message-fetch-field "foo"))

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Re: X-Image-Url support

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 05:38:44 +0200, Lars wrote:

> asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:

>> Isn't there an easy was to ask for a header that may or may not be
>> hidden?

> (with-current-buffer gnus-original-article-buffer
>   (message-fetch-field "foo"))

Works perfectly, thanks!


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Vi är små citroner"                                         Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo@koldfront.dk

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:06:17 +0200 Julien Danjou <julien@danjou.info> wrote: 

JD> On Thu, Jul 28 2011, Sander Boer wrote:
>> I notice quite a few people in this group use X-Face headers, but I read
>> that these are regarded to be antequated.

JD> They are and there are supported by a very few MUA… Actually I don't
JD> know any other thing than Gnus that supports it currently, but there
JD> might be.

The GMane web interface shows X-Face and Face headers.  I dimply recally
some Google service shows them too.

Ted

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Tassilo Horn]

"Sander Boer" <sanderboer@yahoo.com> writes:

Hi Sander,

> What I would like to know is what the good people in this group think
> of the methods for these unnecessary embelishments: devil's spawn,
> don't care or waiting for a better solution ?

X-Face is usually ugly, Face is a bit better.  The modern way is to use
gravatar (which Gnus does of course support).  Then nothing is added to
the header at all, but the client (e.g., Gnus) may ask the gravatar
server for some nice, high quality icon.

Bye,
Tassilo
-- 
Sent from my Emacs

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Dave Abrahams]

on Thu Jul 28 2011, Tassilo Horn <tassilo-AT-member.fsf.org> wrote:

> "Sander Boer" <sanderboer@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Hi Sander,
>
>> What I would like to know is what the good people in this group think
>> of the methods for these unnecessary embelishments: devil's spawn,
>> don't care or waiting for a better solution ?
>
> X-Face is usually ugly, Face is a bit better.  The modern way is to use
> gravatar (which Gnus does of course support).  Then nothing is added to
> the header at all, but the client (e.g., Gnus) may ask the gravatar
> server for some nice, high quality icon.
>
> Bye,
> Tassilo

It would be really nice if it could fall back to using picons when no
gravatar is found.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

Re: What is the consensus concerning Face:, X-Face:, X-Image-Url and gravatar ?

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:14:09 +0200 Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org> wrote: 

TH> "Sander Boer" <sanderboer@yahoo.com> writes:
TH> Hi Sander,

>> What I would like to know is what the good people in this group think
>> of the methods for these unnecessary embelishments: devil's spawn,
>> don't care or waiting for a better solution ?

TH> X-Face is usually ugly

*sniff* that's just mean, we can't help our looks *sniff*

TH> Face is a bit better.  The modern way is to use gravatar (which
TH> Gnus does of course support).  Then nothing is added to the header
TH> at all, but the client (e.g., Gnus) may ask the gravatar server for
TH> some nice, high quality icon.

Gravatars fail completely if your firewall blocks the gravatar server or
if you are offline.  Face/X-Face keep working.

Ted