Hi,
Erik Meltzer wrote:
> But what's so hard about wanting to *read* mail the way it was
> sent, and *write* mail the way it will be sent? What's so strange
> about wanting to see every line break, every quote char precisely
> where it actually was typed, and wanting to be able to control
> them completely in a reply?
Believe it or not I myself prefer mail/news Mozilla/4 style. I even
filed an RFE (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86607). You
might want to vote for it or file an RFE yourself.
Anyways..., the vertical bar might look strange to you, but it's not in
any way altering the plaintext (the "source") to HTML. As I said before
how plaintext is displayed varies from system to system, from program to
program.
Much more important conformity to standards.
Let's look at Xnews, a reader that supposedly displays plaintext "as
is". It doesn't have a clue about MIME-encoding. It sends out messages
not caring about what kind of characters the body contains. People using
Xnews don't know (because on their Windows PC with windows-1252 the
message displays fine) that as soon as they are using characters that
are not part of us-ascii (for example � as in fianc�e), other readers
(IMO all Unix readers) that look at the header first might be *very*
confused about how to display the body.
Another example: tin. Tin with colors enabled displays plaintext very
differently from the "source". *bold* in bold, /italic/ in italic,
_underline_ underlined (and the * / _ will not be displayed). And tin is
IMHO on of the best newsreaders ever.
Displaying plaintext so that everyone sees the *same* is virtually
impossible.
But I agreee that Mozilla should be as flexible as possible in
enabling/disabling settings.
Holger
--
Leela: "Just relax, Bender. Tomorrow we'll pry you down, have a nice
breakfast, and then go hunt down and slaughter that ancient evil."
Fry: "It'll be a rich full day."
Netscape 6 FAQ deutsch: http://www.hmetzger.de
