Re: Overbearing undownloaded face

[Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>]

David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:
>
>> David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
>>
>>> Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I sent a message asking for opinions about this a few months ago, but
>>>> now that I try to find my message, I note that it contained a screen
>>>> shot so it was probably rejected due to size.  So:  Opinions?
>>>
>>> I'm likin' it, though I don't exactly understand what the effect was.
>>
>> For me, it makes unread (and ticked, and ...) articles black instead
>> of a green-blue-ish (undownloadable mark) color which looks almost
>> identical to the green-blue-ish color which is used for read messages.
>
> That's what it does for me, too.  What I meant was I'm not sure what
> it's doing *technically*.  If moving those Sexprs down makes them
> ineffectual, can't they be eliminated?

Ah.  But it still has priority over the read mark.  So if you have a
read, undownloaded, article it will be marked with the undownloaded
face instead of the read face.  However, if the article is unread (or
ticked, or ...), you will see the unread (or tick, or ...) face,
instead of the undownloaded face.

Wasn't undownloaded articles marked with a @ or % mark or something
before?  Do people care about the downloadedness of articles?  I
don't.

If you select the article, you'll notice it is either there or not,
and until I want to read the article, I don't care if it exists
locally or not.  But if I want to read it, having it marked in a
special color isn't going to help me, since the article still doesn't
exist locally.

Hm. I must be missing some kind of use people make of the face.