Prefer text/x-emacs-lisp to application/x-emacs-lisp?

[Raja R Harinath <harinath@cs.umn.edu>]

Hi,

Why doesn't Gnus use "text/x-emacs-lisp" by default when attaching .el
files.

I'm unclear about the distinction between application/foo and
text/foo.  But, to me, code that is meant to be read (e.g., postings
on gnu.emacs.source, or the automatic attachment of user settings by
reportbug) should be "text/x-emacs-lisp".  This way, the annoying
behaviour of Gnus while showing .el files will be avoided.  The
current behaviour of Gnus is painful since it assumes any attached
emacs lisp code is executable, and it presents the file inconveniently
-- in a different buffer that hides the *Article* buffer, rather than
inline.

In other words, is it an useful distinction to have two attachment
types for Emacs Lisp:

  text/x-emacs-lisp             Emacs Lisp code meant to be read, not
                                immediately executed.  Default
                                behaviour is to show inline,
                                preferably using emacs-lisp-mode.
                                This type is used by 'gnus-bug', and
                                as the default type for .el files.

  application/x-emacs-lisp      Code intended to be executed.
                                Default behaviour is the show "Worm"
                                warning, show code in a different
                                buffer, and if necessary, use a
                                sandbox to execute code.

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash