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

[Wes Hardaker <wjhardaker@ucdavis.edu>]

>>>>> On 13 Nov 1998 23:18:46 +0100, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> said:

>> What's wrong with invis text?

Lars> XEmacs doesn't implement intangibility properly, so walking the
Lars> cursor past invisible text is a harrowing experience there.

See below...

Lars> How about if the user types away, and then decides to insert a
Lars> picture at point.  Message inserts something that looks like a
Lars> button at point ([image/jpeg nice-picture.jpg 1] or something),
Lars> and then, at the end of the buffer (after the narrowed-to
Lars> portion ends, one would have the real part.  The
Lars> parts-after-the-end-of-the-visible-buffer could look like:

Lars> --Message non-text part 1 starts here--
Lars> binary gruft, or perhaps base64 or whatever
Lars> --Message non-text part 1 ends here--
Lars> --Message non-text part 2 starts here--
Lars> binary gruft, or perhaps base64 or whatever
Lars> --Message non-text part 2 ends here--

I *really really* think you're going to shoot yourself later if you
try to deal with all the possible cases of things going wrong here...

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).

I'd hate to have to parse the text above to figure out when to put in
parts hidden below, and stuff.

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?

-- 
"Ninjas aren't dangerous.  They're more afraid of you than you are of them."