On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 22:16, Bill Zhu wrote: > Hi Jeff > I saw that this bug had been closed. > But I still wannt to say : I donn't wannt to just stop here. Because it > really make users feel inconvenient. Thinking of if I were the user of > evolution, if I meet a link in the mail which can be clicked, but there > is no any response after I clicked it. I would think this software is > terrible.
that's too bad. the current behaviour is correct. hacking it to work brokenly is broken. > > In my opinion, if it is not a link, why allow user to click it? it *is* a link, it's just not a link that works. > and if > we allow user to click it, we should not make it have no response. ok, how about an error dialog? > but > not to ignore this, even if we donn't think it is a bug. > I think maybe it is better if we add something to handle the situation > of "em-no-cid:";. like cut off the "em-no-cid:"; and pass it to > gnome_url_show just when user click the link. this would be broken. want proof? test out the html on a web browser. here, I've done the hard part for you: http://primates.ximian.com/~fejj/proof.html does that relative link work? no? surprise surprise. web browsers don't follow that link to http://www.ximian.com either. fancy that. Jeff > > > > å2004å02æ19æç09:10ïJeffrey Stedfaståéï > > Actually, it turns out the 1.5 composer somehow generates the following > > when doing "insert link" > > > > <FONT COLOR="#bluish"><U>www.ximian.com</U></FONT> > > > > discovered that while trying to create a mail to show this "problem" > > earlier today. > > > > Jeff > > > > On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 20:02, Not Zed wrote: > > > the only way i see this being fixed is for the gtkhtml editor to say 'oh > > > the user REALLY meant to insert a http link' and make it a non-relative > > > url. > > > > > > the em-no-cid thing is just a side-effect, and it has to be there for > > > html mails. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 12:04 +0800, Bill Zhu wrote: > > > > > > > yeah,I have looked through the 1.5, the situation is almost the same. > > > > > > > > On ä, 2004-02-17 at 19:52 +0100, Radek DoulÃk wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 11:26 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Radek: you seem to be discussing 1.5, while Bill seems to be talking > > > > > > about 1.4 > > > > > > > > > > > > which branch is the bug actually in? > > > > > > > > > > I guess the bug is in both branches (I checked 1.5.x) Only the protocol > > > > > name changed? (cid: --> em-no-cid:) > > > > > > > > > > Radek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > > > > > > _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
