Oleg Rekutin wrote:
>
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
> >
> > It's inconsistent:
> > - It's different than what I'm used to (without being "better" - if
> > you're used to "> ", the blue line gives no gain)
>
> It's better becasuse it's clearer. It immediately indicates the quoted
> area, while it takes me a few more moments to distinguish the area
> quoted by ">" (Ok, so I'm "trained" by now, but it took me a while to
> get used to when I got on the Internet). And how does the fact that
> "it's different" show inconsitency?
I just meant that it was inconsistent with what I'm used to. I have my
mail client (4.x as it happens) configured to show quoted text in bold,
which is plenty to make it stand out without modifying the text. I'm not
suggesting that the line isn't useful for some people - just that for
*me*, there is no gain, because the bold text combined with the fact
that I'm used to > characters makes it immediately clear what is quoted.
> It's used for everything. I just tested on flowed and non-flowed
> messages, on over 10 different messages, old and new, including messages
> in foreign language encodings.
This is a hidden pref - I was just indicating why I disliked it for
*both* settings of the pref.
> I tried posting a message containing various combinations of x > 3 (x>3
> x> 3, etc) and other stuff, and every one of them came thru exactly
> right. I also tried posting the same thing from a non-flowed (fixed)
> client and all of my x > 3's came through. Try it yourself.
If ff is turned on for sending, I'm sure that the use of > in the
content is correctly disambiguated. If it's not, I'm less sure.
I can't say I've tested this with Mozilla, but as I said, I have 4.x
configured to highlight quoted text in bold. This makes it immediately
clear when a piece of text is incorrectly interpreted as a quotation, so
when this happens, I see it.
I admit that it is rare, but it does happen. x > 3 won't show up
incorrectly in most cases, but if it just happens to be wordwrapped to x
> 3 then that line will show up as a quotation.
(I deliberately inserted a linebreak above for demonstration purposes.
Since I don't think that 4.x sends f=f, I expect that the above line
would be interpreted as a quotation)
In about a year of using this display format, I've seen perhaps a couple
of dozen messages having at least one line wrongly bolded. I would
suggest that even one message a year is too many to be corrupting in
this way (remember, unless the user knows that his client is using > to
indicate quoting, he has no way to know that the missing symbol is a >.
And we're trying to eliminate the need for people to know that > is used
for quoting).
> Blue? Perhaps you're using the modern theme. I'm using the classic theme
> and the bar is nice neutral grey. And of course, you can just change the
> CSS style for it and make it the color you want.
That's good, at least (perhaps I was just getting confused with 4.x's
HTML mail display - I haven't spent a lot of time using Moz mailnews,
although I did use it for long enough to see f=f posts).
Stuart.
