You are totally confusing the issues. When you reply to a message, the original text is quoted.
If, in the composer, I then start writing my own text and start a line with '>', this DOES NOT mean that I'm quoting someone. A stupid editor with no smarts at all would highlight that line simply because it started with a '>'. A smart editor would realise the difference between the original quoted text and text the user is typing and thus not highlight any of the text that the user types, even if it starts with a '>'. GtkHTML tries it's best to do what a smart editor would do. And it works quite well, so long as you don't start editing the quoted reply which is what started this whole thread. And keep in mind, this is in the EDITOR, not the preview pane or anything else. Also keep in mind that the colouring does not get passed along to the recpients in any way, so if it *does* mess up in the editor due to you hand-editing the quoted text, it's not an issue. That said, the CVS development branch handles quoted text differently so that hand-editing the quoted text cannot be messed up. End-Of-Thread Jeff On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 18:19, David Hoover wrote: > On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 12:54, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 13:30, Nils O. Sel�sdal wrote: > > > I find it great having color on things you edit, makes it easier to > > > read. I dont think I'd be wery happy if I e.g.edited some source > > > code in vim, removed a quote " around a string, and vim didnt fix > > > the color for the rest of the source when I put it back again.. > > This is a completely separate issue, one is doing syntax highlighting > > and the other is trying to be smart on arbitrary text that someone else > > wrote. > Isn't syntax highlighting more or less by definition, "be[ing] smart on > arbitrary text that someone ... wrote"? > > Like when I use vim to edit my mailspool, and it's able to color it, and > make citations cyan, based solely on the text? > > Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying these two cases are > "completely separate issue[s]": > 1. vim (a text editor) looks at some arbitrary text in its > buffer (which was typed, or read from a file, or whatever) > and it goes "Hey, I've been told to color this using my rules > for coloring email, so if it starts with >, make it cyan" > 2. Evolution's mail composer (a text editor) has to look at some > arbitrary text in its buffer (which was typed, or included > when you hit reply, or whatever), and goes "Hey, I'm coloring > this using my rules for coloring email (since that's all I > ever do), so if it starts with >, make it cyan" > > How is it a completely separate issue? One's a text editor that has > zillions of different rules to be able to syntax highlight any of a > number of different text formats, and the other is a very specialized > text editor, which would only need one set of rules explaining how to > syntax highlight one type of text. > > > _______________________________________________ > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
