begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:48:25AM -0700: > John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > >I am going to guess that the correct answer of using the X11 method of > >selecting the text in the To: widget and pasting it into the ``body'' > >window vi editor instance is not going to be acceptable. > > It is if pasting UTF-8 source text into an ISO-8859-1 destination text > is acceptable or if requiring manual overrides every time the character > set changes. Wasn't this the sort of madness that *lead* to the creation of ASCII?
> It is also acceptable if you are required to actually put the vi window > into insert mode first before the text hits. This is a feature. See below. > If, however, you actually expect cut-and-paste for your "integrated > editor of your choice" to say, work as well as Windows circa 1998, then, > no, it's not. I don't recall MSwindows ever being very good at cut-and-paste. I far prefer XWindows, especially when I can run xcb... [snip] > >Assuming the vi widget is actually an xterm with Fancy Wrapping: set the > >font as required when creating the vi widget to begin with, and the > >proper LANG and all that. IOW: it is done when the ``body'' window is > >instantiated. > > Correct. But you had to *manually* set those up. As well as *manually* > establish vi into insert mode. This is a feature. My biggest complaint with cut-and-paste into a browser is that the past happens not at the cursor (which would make sense), but at the point where the mouse is at, which means I get all sorts of grief. When pasting into vi, it Does The Right Thing[tm], and inserts at the cursor. Or, if I'm not insert mode, it treats it as a command. This lets me work on a complicated vi expression without having to rewrite the whole thing each time... I can past in the command, and lo! it works. > Somehow, I don't think most people would consider that to be a good > example of "integrating the editor of your choice". And, if you do, > then you already have the hooks to launch an external version and import > the edited text anyway. Since that's what is wanted, how does what > currently exists not meet the requirements? Hm? Where? How? I have not found this capability in thunderbird yet. Please inform me of the magic incantation. I have an ebony-handled knife set aside for the necessary sacrifices. > >Mutt and Lynx both allow me to use the editor of my choice. > > They both used to choke quite badly if your editor fed them UTF-16 text. > Has that changed? That's because UTF-16 is horribly broken (in my book, anyway). "Whenever I drive a toyota off a cliff, it gets all dented up. My ultraglider doesn't. Obviously, this is a problem with Toyota's design." -- Why didn't ASCII specify italic, bold, and underlined versions of glyphs? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
