From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/68646 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Sending attachments Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:50:58 +0900 Message-ID: References: <87k52rzyn1.fsf@benthic.rattlesnake.com> <873a9fw6dt.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87y6r7yp1y.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <0922916E-B9DD-41C4-8A3D-8550CDD56B62@mit.edu> <83r5ww1m3k.fsf@gnu.org> <871vovsvi8.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83ljn324xd.fsf@gnu.org> <87skhbrdz3.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83hbxr0zc6.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbxqrha4.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83d48e1oz6.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246852285 27604 80.91.229.12 (6 Jul 2009 03:51:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: yamaoka@jpl.org, yandros@MIT.EDU, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 06 05:51:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MNfEa-00034o-Vs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:51:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48653 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MNfEa-0003s1-6V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:51:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MNfEV-0003ro-LX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:51:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MNfER-0003qt-5p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:51:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52785 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MNfER-0003qq-0c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:51:07 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:53520) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MNfEM-0008Pg-10; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:51:02 -0400 Original-Received: from relay31.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.54]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n663oqnl017680; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:50:58 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay31.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.16] [10.29.19.16]) by relay31.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:50:58 +0900 Original-Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.112.173] [10.114.112.173]) by relay31.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:50:58 +0900 Original-Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 375B252E206; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:50:58 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <83d48e1oz6.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:15:25 +0300") Original-Lines: 47 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112063 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:68646 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > I don't think anybody was talking about ``real support for MIME''. > People who managed to get away without MIME at all till this day > probably don't need more than a simple way of attaching non-text > files. It's not what rms asked about, but it's certainly relevant to the discussion. Even if rms and ams would be satisfied with mail-mode + simple-attach, it's natural to step back and think about the wider implications of doing that. In particular, the objections to simply adopting message-mode are still unclear to me (other than the obvious one, that rms continues to be annoyed because it was merged [apparently] without asking him). Roughly these objections seem to be something along the lines of "mail-mode is simpler", but unless I've missed it, there's been little discussion of exactly what the benefits of that are. Some random points that come to mind: (1) We must still maintain message-mode as well, so mail-mode's "simplicity" yields no obvious code maintenance Benefit. Indeed, it's obviously more of a _burden_ to maintain both modes than it is to maintain message-mode alone (in the case that we got rid of mail-mode). This burden goes up, of course, if mail-mode starts getting more features, like the suggested attachments. (2) I've used both modes over the years, and from my viewpoint as a user, both modes seem pretty much the same form a UI standpoint -- message-mode has more bindings to support its additional functionality, but they do not get in the way as far as I can see. So as far as I can tell, mail-mode does not have an obviously simpler UI for the average user. So... what exactly _is_ the "simplicity advantage" that's been alluded to? [The "duplicated code disadvantage", on the other hand is pretty obvious...] Thanks, -Miles -- Sabbath, n. A weekly festival having its origin in the fact that God made the world in six days and was arrested on the seventh.