I never even thought to try /oo*/. I was using /o\{1,\}/ instead. Good to know!As for the archives, I still don't see anything newer than October 2018. Screenshot: https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1J3V1v052a2d2G1j0J3z/Image%202019-01-03%20at%209.11.59%20AM.png Am I looking in the wrong place? On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 10:43 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > Brian Zwahr wrote: > > g/o\+/ > > In passing I will say that the equivelent basic RE for this is: > > /oo*/ > > And to make a typical example use to clarify this matches one or more > digits. > > /[0-9][0-9]*/ > > > So 1.15 is officially released? The archives only show through > > Oct. 2018, and the last posts there are about 1.15-pre2, which I > > assume is/was not a final release. Related, the archive says it > > refreshes every 30 minutes, but I don't see any of today's > > conversation (nor anything since Oct 2018). Should the auto-refresh > > have caught and posted this conversation? > > I see this message thread in the archives. As the message says, there > is a cronjob that runs every half hour and threads in new messages. > > > Unrelated side note: the mailing list rules state that only text > > emails (no HTML) should be used, so I've been doing that (forcing > > text format). > > That rule for avoiding HTML email is generally true of all technical > mailing lists. HTML email has many problems and issues. Plain text > is always best! > > > The replies I've been getting have been HTML emails. Is that rule no > > longer applicable? If so, that'll save me the trouble of making sure > > I'm sending text-only message, but also means that the rules should > > probably be updated. > > Thank you very much for sending plain text emails. Why not make that > the default? :-) > > However the other emails I saw were multipart/alternative with both > plain and html parts. You may have seen the text/html part but others > (myself!) saw the text/plain parts. Worst case is an text/html only > message, goodness forbid. > > Off the top of my head... > > HTML often gets used because people want to set colors and fonts for > the reader. But the recipient should have the choice of colors and > fonts not the sender. > > HTML has not been as accessible for screen readers for vision impaired > users. (I assume this has improved over the years.) > > HTML is really inefficient for bandwidth. It's a pig by comparison to > plain text. On mailing lists with a lot of subscribers that can be > serious. Often the gnu.org mailing lists keep the network bandwidth > (all donated btw) at 100% for hours at a time. Also as mobile cell > data becomes more prevailent metered plans where the recipient pays > the data charge means expense for the recipient. > > Email standards only require a plain text part. Therefore a fully > standards compliant email client might display the raw html. > > Some HTML producers generate really abhorent html. > > HTML email often contains "web bugs" and other tracking mechanisms. > > HTML has been used to propagate attacks. > > Bob > > P.S. Antonio, I twiddled the mailing list settings somewhat in > response to this. _______________________________________________ bug-ed mailing list bug-ed@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ed
