Thursday, July 27, 2000, 1:56:42 PM, Tom wrote:
> You don't look at any of the headers in any form before reading a
> message?
Look, no. Scan, yes.
> Am I correct in assuming that you don't ever care what the full To:
> field is, if it's long?
Oddly enough that rarely happens. The few times it does happen I have no
problems showing the headers, er kludges.
> Why can't there be that in-between?
I can respect that.
> Who says what parts are the body or not is just speaking about
> preference anyway, but I would imagine that the commonly accepted
> definition is "the stuff that's not the headers."
Then that flies in the face of the word "attachments". As in these files
are attached to the message. They are not the message, they are not the body,
they are additions to it.
> That they don't show it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Last I knew,
> "attachments" in MIME came one after another rather than in parallel.
I didn't say that. What I said was quite specific.
>SL> Also in the MIME context there really isn't any positional
>SL> information from most clients.
Operative part is "from most clients." Most clients do not allow the user
to set which part comes first, last or anywhere in between. Therefore your
statement that having the attachment displayed "in the order they come in" is
kinda pointless especially in counter to my statement that the attachment view
should go on the bottom of the window, not the side. Either way they're at
the bottom. In your case you need to scroll to them.
> Why, all of the sudden does "understanding MIME" mean we shouldn't
> show the user something that actually does closely resemble what the
> file looks like?
Because there is no positional information of relevance. You show me a
client that can do it in wide use (because I do know of one that does it) and
you might have a case for displaying things in order. Fact is I can't think
of one in wide enough use to justify it.
> *I* would prefer if attachment showed inline simply because of the
> fact that I choose not to open them nor do I care that they exist >90%
> of the time.
Then why would you want them inline? I mean, really, it is easier to
ignore a single icon high window at the bottom...
|------------------------|
| Some random attachment |
| |
| Click |
| <HERE> |
| to open |
|------------------------|
...than to have several different icons in the middle of the text interrupting
the flow of the text just because...
|------------------------|
| Some random attachment |
| |
| Click |
| <HERE> |
| to open |
|------------------------|
...the person on the other end decided, at that moment, to drop a file into
the message. I mean, do you really mean to tell me...
|------------------------|
| Some random attachment |
| |
| Click |
| <HERE> |
| to open |
|------------------------|
...that skipping over icons is easier than just not having them there in the
first place, especially when you claim to not care about them?
|------------------------|
| Some random attachment |
| |
| Click |
| <HERE> |
| to open |
|------------------------|
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
