Re: MIME composition (was: Storing the group a message has been written to)

[Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr>]

Wes Hardaker <wjhardaker@ucdavis.edu> writes:

> I would, instead, go ahead with the invisible text and make the
> XEmacs group fix the invisible text pointer problems....  (this
> would certainly give them the motivation to do it).

XEmacs doesn't implement intangible extent property not because of
lack of motivation but because of lack of consensus of how it should
be done.

FYI, handling the `intangible' property correctly is very very hard,
because you have to consider easiness of interface, easiness of
implementation, backward compatibility, and FSF Emacs compatibility.
These four are often in conflict in various ways -- I can elaborate on 
this if you're curious, and perhaps on another mailing list.

Take my word on this, as I tried.

> Plus, narrowing should be a *user* feature that you'd be removing
> from their power by narrowing the buffer for them.  (If they
> narrowed the buffer around a paragraph of theirs, and then hit C-c
> C-c, what do you do?  What if they narrow then un-narrow thus
> exposing all your junk at the end?  Confuse-a-user-R-us?

Although there are precedents for narrowing not being a user feature
(say `info.el'), I agree it should remain that way for message
composition.  As you pointed out, `C-x n w' removes *all* narrowing,
not just the most recent one.

-- 
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
If we get involved in a nuclear war, will the electromagnetic pulses
from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?