Mark Wieder wrote: > However, expecting TB to ignore cut marks would be asking the > developers to violate RFC-2646 in much the same way that Microsoft's > developers did with OE.
You are missing my point entirely. I don't expect TB to *always* ignore cut marks. I like the feature 95% of the time. But if software is designed to allow a user to highlight a block of text to quote in a reply, THEN THAT BLOCK SHOULD BE IN THE REPLY. In other words, if I want to go "non-standard" for 5% of my replies, and the functionality I desire is certainly *implied* (highlight text, F4), I should be able to do so. Would you use a similar argument (violate standards) if The Bat! did not easily allow top-posting? What about HTML/Rich Text? Standards are great, and I support adhering to agreed-upon standards. Unfortunately, not everyone I deal with supports the same standards, so I have to make exceptions and deal with it. This list illustrates the "diversity of standards" on a weekly basis: how many times does the cut mark issue (dash-dash-space-newline) get explained here per week? My desire to easily/quickly include all the text I select for a reply doesn't appear to be one that is going to be "solved" - the suggested workarounds are fine, I suppose. But I can't imagine any explanation that would change my mind regarding the F4 quoting functionality: if F4 is designed to use the highlighted text a user selects for a reply, then use what the user selects! Don't make a cut mark decision for me if I have explicitly selected text that includes a cut mark! Don't try to tell me that what I want to do is non-standard. I *know* the reply I'm trying to create is non-standard e-mail correspondence. But what about software design and usability standards? -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.01.3 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
