From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/25841 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: HTML recognition Date: 11 Oct 1999 17:25:54 -0700 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035163157 16201 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:19:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA20475 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by spinoza.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAB08828; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:28:06 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:28:25 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00568 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:28:16 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA20387 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:26:12 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 6983 invoked by uid 50); 12 Oct 1999 00:25:54 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Dave Thomas's message of "11 Oct 1999 19:02:03 -0500" Original-Lines: 61 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:25841 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:25841 Dave Thomas writes: > LyX does stuff like this all the time. So do Netscape/Outlook mail > composers. I don't see why you have to be hampered by a plain text input > regime and heuristics when you're trying to move away from that into a > world of logical markup. But I'm not trying to make that move, because that world doesn't offer me anything I care about *for news and e-mail*. I'm not trying to deny other people whatever freedom that they think they want; I'm trying to point out that turning their e-mail to me into eye candy isn't going to communicate any more efficiently. Basically, I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that such facilities will be used well. They historically haven't been, and word processors certainly largely aren't despite the fact that they're applied to a problem domain better suited for this solution. There are many features for me in communicating with people in plain text. It helps some in making people focus on what they're trying to say rather than how they're trying to say it. > I agree - but there's no need for automation. Type in code, highlight > it, and say 'this is code' (just like you'd now type it in, select it > and C-u 4 C-x TAB to offset it) I don't want to do this. There's no reason for it. I *don't* use that key combination to indent code; I just hit tab or the space bar a few times. The same way I intend a list. I object to the general trend that says I should have to use more keystrokes and memorize more commands to communicate my intention to software. I really don't want more buttons, commands, and key bindings unless they either add functionality that I don't already have or are absolutely necessary for some reason. The purpose of software isn't to impress me with the things it can do, but rather to get out of my way as much as possible. I already know how to make a list or type code. > But... it wraps only during composition (see the other thread on hard > vs. soft newlines. Rewrapping a message written by someone with a > different width screen is hard - too much information is lost in plain > text. Again, I think emacs already does a perfectly reasonable job at this. > Not mine - Addison Wesley asked for a 1.5\baselineskip galley set in > Bookman.[1] In fact, most of what I've read suggests a good proportional > font is more readable. Fiction may be a different world than non-fiction here. It wouldn't surprise me; technical writing has a different publication process anyway. > Just because it's not for you is no reason to deny it to others. I'm not going to break into their homes and steal their HTML composers. :) I think that's a poor phrasing of the issue, since it implies that what they're doing doesn't affect me. It's not just that they want to use it; they want to send it to me. I don't see why I should have to run lynx or some equivalent on my incoming mail just because people have some aversion to using *stars* for bold. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)