From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18571 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: MIME composition (was: Storing the group a message has been written to) Date: 13 Nov 1998 23:18:46 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035157072 6860 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:37:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28987 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:35:47 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAB08930; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:35:34 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:35:19 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA04822 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 16:35:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sparky.gnus.org (ppp015.uio.no [129.240.240.16]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA28946 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:35:01 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by sparky.gnus.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA15050; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:38:22 +0100 Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Reading: Janet Frame's _The Carpathians_ Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Wes Hardaker's message of "13 Nov 1998 13:28:52 -0800" User-Agent: Gnus/5.070043 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.43) Emacs/20.3 X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ writes: > Lars> I don't really see any easy way to do this... Hm... Invisible > Lars> text sucks... Hm. > > What's wrong with invis text? XEmacs doesn't implement intangibility properly, so walking the cursor past invisible text is a harrowing experience there. > Does it mess up auto-saving? No, but there would have to be, er, stuff there to let nndraft reinvisibilize the text. > text/plain > application/octet-string > text/plain > > How do you edit the second text/plain, if you want to add text after > the stuff you just inserted. Yes... Well, there could be a... [Imagine a light bulb switching on over my head.] How about if the user types away, and then decides to insert a picture at point. Message inserts something that looks like a button at point ([image/jpeg nice-picture.jpg 1] or something), and then, at the end of the buffer (after the narrowed-to portion ends, one would have the real part. The parts-after-the-end-of-the-visible-buffer could look like: --Message non-text part 1 starts here-- binary gruft, or perhaps base64 or whatever --Message non-text part 1 ends here-- --Message non-text part 2 starts here-- binary gruft, or perhaps base64 or whatever --Message non-text part 2 ends here-- This would auto-save OK, and it wouldn't be difficult for nndraft to reconstruct what goes where. Then, when Message actually saves the thing, it would create a multipart/mixed, where the "[image/jpeg nice-picture.jpg 1]" were located and stuff. One nice thing about this is that the user could just kill the region containing the "button" if she decides not to include the part. I think this is doable. But it's only multipart/mixed. Granted, that's 99% of what gets sent, but... -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen