Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 7 Apr 2014, at 14:41, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: On 6 Apr 2014, at 21:26, Brad Knowles wrote: It will be interesting to see how Benny balances these requirements. ;-) I certainly appreciate the various “use cases” described in this thread. I'll keep them in mind when revisiting this issue (which I regularly do in the hope of some kind of eureka moment). A somehow related requirement: *Disable Markdown for cited text.* Most useful would be to have this option offered, when MailMate detects Markdown in cited text and offers now to disable markdown at all. Here I would appreciated this as an alternative. Kind regards, Ingo -- Ingo Lantschner ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 8 Apr 2014, at 8:08, Ingo Lantschner wrote: A somehow related requirement: *Disable Markdown for cited text.* Most useful would be to have this option offered, when MailMate detects Markdown in cited text and offers now to disable markdown at all. Here I would appreciated this as an alternative. Thanks for the idea. I have already considered this solution, but it's not perfect since it doesn't play well with `markup=markdown` and therefore I haven't examined it in detail. I'll revisit that decision and see where it brings me. -- Benny ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 16:20, Brad Knowles wrote: So I would still prefer to leave in-word underscores unprocessed. You mean like Github-flavored Markdown? Yes, although I do not use Github-flavored Markdown, but I have read about it there. -- Ingo Lantschner ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 6 Apr 2014, at 21:26, Brad Knowles wrote: It will be interesting to see how Benny balances these requirements. ;-) I certainly appreciate the various “use cases” described in this thread. I'll keep them in mind when revisiting this issue (which I regularly do in the hope of some kind of eureka moment). -- Benny ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 6 Apr 2014, at 11:36, Kee Hinckley wrote: But it’s allowed me to do things like add automatic syntax-highlighting to code blocks, and support tab-delimited tables, and otherwise extend my email in ways which make my work much easier. If someone were to view the plain-text of those messages, or even reply to them, they wouldn’t get exactly what I got, but they’d get something perfectly readable–that’s the basic nature of Markdown. …unless they use MailMate to read the plain-text part, in which case, it will detect `markup=markdown` and run your text through its internal processor, which won’t always handle it correctly. The theoretical future solution takes this into account, and that’s why we need a more official/supported way. -- Rob McBroom http://www.skurfer.com/ ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 7 Apr 2014, at 9:53, Rob McBroom wrote: On 6 Apr 2014, at 11:36, Kee Hinckley wrote: But it’s allowed me to do things like add automatic syntax-highlighting to code blocks, and support tab-delimited tables, and otherwise extend my email in ways which make my work much easier. If someone were to view the plain-text of those messages, or even reply to them, they wouldn’t get exactly what I got, but they’d get something perfectly readable–that’s the basic nature of Markdown. …unless they use MailMate to read the plain-text part, in which case, it will detect `markup=markdown` and run your text through its internal processor, which won’t always handle it correctly. No, that's my point. The whole idea behind Markdown is that readable even if *not* processed. So the fact that one markdown processor supports a couple extra features doesn't matter. What you see still makes sense. If I send you some code-fenced Python and you don't see it with syntax highlighting, that's fine. It's still formatted correctly and perfectly readable. If I paste in some tab-separated content, you see tab-separated content. That's fine. Yes, someone viewing the HTML will see a prettier version--but that's what HTML is for.___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 7 Apr 2014, at 14:33, Kee Hinckley wrote: No, that’s my point. The whole idea behind Markdown is that readable even if _not_ processed. So the fact that one markdown processor supports a couple extra features doesn’t matter. What you see still makes sense. Yeah, I get that and I agree. *My* point is that “not processed” doesn’t exist in the current version of MailMate. The original Markdown text might be perfectly readable, but there’s no way to actually *see* it with the current behavior. If the plain-text part includes the `markup=markdown` header, MailMate renders it and shows you the resulting HTML. To see what I mean, select the message you just sent me and hit ⌥⌘[ to view the “plain text” version. You’ll see that it’s just HTML without your stylesheet. If you try the same thing on my message, there’ll be no difference at all because one is the HTML generated by MailMate on my end and one is the HTML generated by MailMate on your end (both from the same source). With the possible future implementation, Benny has indicated that `markup=markdown` won’t be added for those using custom parsers, which will make it possible to view the sender’s original Markdown without any assumptions about how it should be processed. That’s why I think it’s worth it to spend time on official support for additional Markdown parsers. -- Rob McBroom http://www.skurfer.com/ ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 11:16, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: To me the question should be: Is it worth adding the option of alternative Markdown converters at the price of people using inline HTML and other unreadable plain text? I'm not so sure ;-) Personally, I'm happy to keep using my wrapper around MultiMarkdown in the existing model. It's too complicated for it to be likely of use to others, although if there were a way to release it as a bundle, I'd be happy to. But it's allowed me to do things like add automatic syntax-highlighting to code blocks, and support tab-delimited tables, and otherwise extend my email in ways which make my work much easier. If someone were to view the plain-text of those messages, or even reply to them, they wouldn't get exactly what I got, but they'd get something perfectly readable--that's the basic nature of Markdown. I don't think you need to specially tag those situations. Assume that in the future other mail programs might use other markdown processors; you want them to interact. If you're looking at where to focus, rather than specifically supporting other Markdown processors, I'd focus on supporting people who have to reply to HTML email without losing the original HTML. I effuse to people at work about MailMate, but then I tell them they can't use it--because it really doesn't work in a corporate environment where people are sending complex (and often Outlook-generated) mail messages, and my current hack (strip out the header information, convert body to a div, force-include MailMate's CSS so as to override the broken Outlook CSS for my portion of the message, and then enter my markdown message above the raw HTML of their message) doesn't work with Sundown, and while it is fine for me, it's not suitable for public consumption. I only do that for work email, but it would nice to be able to use it as a general reply option--because sometimes people send you HTML email and you need to reply without bowdlerizing it. Forcing top-commenting in that environment is probably fine (I rarely see Outlook users inline commenting--and when they do, it invariably gets screwed up by Outlook--but maybe that's just where I work).___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
For me, Kee is highlighting my dilemma: I need to reply to HTML, and create well-formed HTML tables and such, and in doing so the email needs to look good to the corporate/outlook world I live in. I was actually going to spend time today searching the listserve for guidance. I've tried some other email apps and keep coming back the MM because of its unparalleled search. But for us MM users that are even afraid of keybinding, I keep hoping some sort of easily adopted solution will appear. Plaintext simply doesn't work for me in 25% of my life... Rob McClure shar...@gmail.com On Apr 6, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Kee Hinckley kee+fre...@hinckley.com wrote: On 3 Apr 2014, at 11:16, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: To me the question should be: Is it worth adding the option of alternative Markdown converters at the price of people using inline HTML and other unreadable plain text? I’m not so sure ;-) Personally, I’m happy to keep using my wrapper around MultiMarkdown in the existing model. It’s too complicated for it to be likely of use to others, although if there were a way to release it as a bundle, I’d be happy to. But it’s allowed me to do things like add automatic syntax-highlighting to code blocks, and support tab-delimited tables, and otherwise extend my email in ways which make my work much easier. If someone were to view the plain-text of those messages, or even reply to them, they wouldn’t get exactly what I got, but they’d get something perfectly readable–that’s the basic nature of Markdown. I don’t think you need to specially tag those situations. Assume that in the future other mail programs might use other markdown processors; you want them to interact. If you’re looking at where to focus, rather than specifically supporting other Markdown processors, I’d focus on supporting people who have to reply to HTML email without losing the original HTML. I effuse to people at work about MailMate, but then I tell them they can’t use it–because it really doesn’t work in a corporate environment where people are sending complex (and often Outlook-generated) mail messages, and my current hack (strip out the header information, convert body to a div, force-include MailMate’s CSS so as to override the broken Outlook CSS for my portion of the message, and then enter my markdown message above the raw HTML of their message) doesn’t work with Sundown, and while it is fine for me, it’s not suitable for public consumption. I only do that for work email, but it would nice to be able to use it as a general reply option–because sometimes people send you HTML email and you need to reply without bowdlerizing it. Forcing top-commenting in that environment is probably fine (I rarely see Outlook users inline commenting–and when they do, it invariably gets screwed up by Outlook–but maybe that’s just where I work). ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On Apr 6, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Rob McClure shar...@gmail.com wrote: For me, Kee is highlighting my dilemma: I need to reply to HTML, and create well-formed HTML tables and such, and in doing so the email needs to look good to the corporate/outlook world I live in. Ironically, I'm at the other end -- I need to be able to read messages that others send that are in HTML, even if their MUA was dain-bramaged enough that it didn't give me a proper multipart/alternative, with a plain ASCII text version that I can read. But for what I generate, I'm perfectly happy keeping that to plain ASCII text, or markdown. IMO -- the simpler, the better. It will be interesting to see how Benny balances these requirements. ;-) -- Brad Knowles b...@shub-internet.org LinkedIn Profile: http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
[MlMt] Markdown inside of words
Hi, I often have e-mails containing e.g. file-names with underscores inside of the name. Example: check_netapp_pro.pl id_rsa_rocks.pub This renders to **check_netapp_pro.pl** and **id_rsa_rocks.pub** if not explicitly marked as code. I know that this is how the original markdown works, but I also see that many flavors changed that behavior to ignore underscores (and stars) **inside** of words. Can we have that in MailMate too? Kind regards, Ingo -- Ingo Lantschner___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 8:17, Ingo Lantschner wrote: I often have e-mails containing e.g. file-names with underscores inside of the name. Example: check_netapp_pro.pl id_rsa_rocks.pub This renders to **check_netapp_pro.pl** and **id_rsa_rocks.pub** if not explicitly marked as code. I know that this is how the original markdown works, but I also see that many flavors changed that behavior to ignore underscores (and stars) **inside** of words. Can we have that in MailMate too? I think this would be a good idea. I see many emails where inline-emphasis is used unintentionally and I see very few where it is used intentionally. If anyone feels strongly against such a change then speak up now. Somewhat related, I regularly receive requests for *adding* various Markdown features/flavors and the plan is to handle it like this when I get time to implement it: Allow custom Markdown (or other syntax) converters which can be used to generate the HTML body part of a message, but when this is done then the converter must also provide the plain text body part and MailMate won't add anything to the headers of the message about the plain text body part being Markdown text. -- Benny ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 2:03, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: I think this would be a good idea. I see many emails where inline-emphasis is used unintentionally and I see very few where it is used intentionally. If anyone feels strongly against such a change then speak up now. If you use backticks around these strings, the underscore is automatically escaped: `id_rsa_rocks.pub` will render as: `id_rsa_rocks.pub` Adding backticks causes `code` elements to be placed around the text. Since the majority of the time strings with underscores in them are code snippets, this is the correct way to markup these items anyways. It also has the added benefit of styling the text in a monospaced font in many cases, which helps with clarity. I have found that once I knew this feature existed it solved majority of the issues I had with underscores in words. -- Bjørn ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 5:03, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: I think this would be a good idea. I see many emails where inline-emphasis is used unintentionally and I see very few where it is used intentionally. If anyone feels strongly against such a change then speak up now. I personally wouldn’t miss it, but if anyone would, it would be nice if they could use HTML to get around it, such as `emiphas/iis on the wrong sylliab/ile`. I suppose that would work if you could switch to a theoretical future external Markdown converter, so maybe concentrate effort on that over allowing arbitrary HTML. :-) Somewhat related, I regularly receive requests for _adding_ various Markdown features/flavors and the plan is to handle it like this when I get time to implement it: Allow custom Markdown (or other syntax) converters which can be used to generate the HTML body part of a message, but when this is done then the converter must also provide the plain text body part and MailMate won't add anything to the headers of the message about the plain text body part being Markdown text. And in that case, am I correct in assuming that it would be possible to actually *view* the plain-text part as plain text? That would be nice. But now I wonder, why not just make it the same across the board? That is, if you enable Markdown, the HTML part is included and the headers aren’t modified, whether you use the built-in or custom Markdown converter. It seems to me that keeping the current behavior would only benefit people that meet all of the following criteria: * Use the built-in Markdown processor (once they have the option not to) * Don’t include the HTML part when sending * 100% of the recipients are using MailMate and will see the message as intended Is it worth maintaining code for the two different behaviors to accommodate such a small group? -- Rob McBroom http://www.skurfer.com/ ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Ingo Lantschner list...@lantschner.name wrote: So I would still prefer to leave in-word underscores unprocessed. You mean like Github-flavored Markdown? -- Brad Knowles b...@shub-internet.org LinkedIn Profile: http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 16:16, Rob McBroom wrote: On 3 Apr 2014, at 5:03, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: I think this would be a good idea. I see many emails where inline-emphasis is used unintentionally and I see very few where it is used intentionally. If anyone feels strongly against such a change then speak up now. I personally wouldn’t miss it, but if anyone would, it would be nice if they could use HTML to get around it, such as `emiphas/iis on the wrong sylliab/ile`. I suppose that would work if you could switch to a theoretical future external Markdown converter, so maybe concentrate effort on that over allowing arbitrary HTML. :-) Yes, inline HTML would also only be an option with external Markdown converters (except for signatures). Somewhat related, I regularly receive requests for _adding_ various Markdown features/flavors and the plan is to handle it like this when I get time to implement it: Allow custom Markdown (or other syntax) converters which can be used to generate the HTML body part of a message, but when this is done then the converter must also provide the plain text body part and MailMate won't add anything to the headers of the message about the plain text body part being Markdown text. And in that case, am I correct in assuming that it would be possible to actually *view* the plain-text part as plain text? That would be nice. It would have to work that way, but this really should be optional with the current Markdown plain text body parts as well (I just haven't implemented it). But now I wonder, why not just make it the same across the board? [...] Is it worth maintaining code for the two different behaviors to accommodate such a small group? Yes. To me the question should be: Is it worth adding the option of alternative Markdown converters at the price of people using inline HTML and other unreadable plain text? I'm not so sure ;-) -- Benny ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
Re: [MlMt] Markdown inside of words
On 3 Apr 2014, at 11:16, Benny Kjær Nielsen wrote: To me the question should be: Is it worth adding the option of alternative Markdown converters at the price of people using inline HTML and other unreadable plain text? I'm not so sure ;-) Hopefully that’s not how people would use it. That’s not how I plan to use it. In any case, you’re not going to be able to impose good taste on anyone, so just think about the benefits for those that already have it. :-) -- Rob McBroom http://www.skurfer.com/ ___ mailmate mailing list mailmate@lists.freron.com http://lists.freron.com/listinfo/mailmate
