On 16 April 2015 at 00:28, Emanuel Berg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Elias Mårtenson <[email protected]> writes: > > > I disagree. Sometimes you are working in an > > organisation where Outlook is the main means of > > communication. If so, you need to (unfortunately) > > post messages that conforms to this style. > > This includes including the entire email chain below > > your message, as well as your own messages being > > HTML formatted. > > That never happened to me, and God willing it > never will. > Yes, you are lucky. Please see my previous email for some further elaboration. :-) > I see it even left you post-traumatized because you > don't quote like us but instead answer hanging in the > air and then leave the replied-to post in its entirety > below you post. > Actually, that has a different cause, that being the fact that I'm replying to this list using Gmail which sadly hides the entire quotation when replying. > Also, it doesn't matter if anyone uses Outlook or Gnus > or any other client for that matter. Well, of course > it matters in the sense that those with style and > precision use Gnus. I agree. > But it doesn't matter how quoting > should be done, how the signature should be done > (below a double dash and a space, i.e. "-- " as > described in section 4.3 of [1]), and so on. Mails are > interface agnostic - or should be. > I agree, but when you're a single person in an environment consisting of tens of thousands of people it's either adapt or find a different career. As much as I like Gnus and proper email quoting, and I also like my job so I'm willing to put in the work needed to allow me to combine the things I like. My assumption is that there are at least one more person out there is my situation, which is why I posted my reply. That said, I still do my part inproving standards. Outlook litters the HTML full of non-standard tags (which come from the MS-Word HTML generator that I believe Outlook uses for creating the mail content). When I process the email chain I happily remove all of that before reconstructing the HTML reply chain prior to adding my reply on top. This is another reason I need a structured HTML parser. Emacs have several web browsers - for example the > high-quality piece of software Emacs w3m. Emacs w3m is > in the Debian repositories but isn't shipped with > Emacs. But Emacs comes with eww which should be good > but with many less man-hours put into it compared to > the mature Emacs w3m. Anyway I don't see how any of > this would work without (probably several) > HTML parsers? I've looked at them. Unfortunately they do not parse the HTML into a structured document, but rather directly into output suitable for rendering to the screen. I can't use that to reconstruct the original HTML. Regards, Elias
_______________________________________________ info-gnus-english mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english
