From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9053 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sudish Joseph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Quote emphasis Date: 30 Nov 1996 20:15:58 -0500 Sender: sj@atreides.mindspring.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.84) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149137 16186 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:25:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 21527 invoked from smtpd); 1 Dec 1996 01:27:00 -0000 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@129.240.64.2) by deanna.miranova.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 1996 01:26:59 -0000 Original-Received: from atreides.mindspring.com (qmailr@atreides.mindspring.com [204.180.142.236]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 02:16:05 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 22730 invoked by uid 52477); 1 Dec 1996 01:15:58 -0000 Original-To: The Ding List In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of 01 Dec 1996 01:16:40 +0100 Original-Lines: 42 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.72/XEmacs 19.15 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9053 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9053 In article , Per Abrahamsen writes: > Sudish Joseph writes: >> I liked it, but I agree that it can cause havoc for certain messages. > Which? It works fine with the code snips I have seen. The strings > gets highlighted, as if the code was font-locked. Some messages with quotes spanning multiple lines. A backtrace buffer, for instance. Not a big deal, it looks great for the common case. Smilies cause more problems, but they're sufferable, too. > But I agree it should be on a separate hook function. What should it > be called? `highlight-quotes' would be "correct", but may be easy to > confuse with `highlight-citation'. highlight-quoted-strings? Redundancy in the name might reduce the confusion. >> If all massagers provided two hook-safe functions, feature-foo-article >> and un-feature-foo-article, we wouldn't need variables. They could be >> added to the appropriate hook and given bindings in the W keymap. > Too difficult, not all display features can be undone. I like the part I snipped out. Another thing we can do is to have all article buffer face manipulation pass through one gnus-supplied function. This function (gnus-article-add-text-props?) could then add an extra property alongside of the face proerty it's adding. This property could be used to unmassage the text back. That's simplistic, there're all kinds of priority/sequencing problems. But it's still doable. Not that it's useful for all article display features--face manipulation is the most common case, and it's the easiest to handle. -Sudish