From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: SOLVED Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 16:00:18 +0300 Message-ID: <83shxvfijh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87vb2wi60p.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87zis4g925.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <877ff8cjqg.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <87k2j7pqqd.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <572C89A6.6060405@gmail.com> <572C8ED4.4080404@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1462539653 18160 80.91.229.3 (6 May 2016 13:00:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, yuri.v.khan@gmail.com To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit--Claudel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 06 15:00:52 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ayfND-00073Y-Gm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 15:00:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58128 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayfN9-0004Qc-RJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 09:00:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49491) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayfMl-0004B8-GD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 09:00:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayfMZ-00040L-7A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2016 09:00:18 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43617) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ayfMZ-0003yZ-4G; Fri, 06 May 2016 09:00:11 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2787 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ayfMS-00078A-SM; Fri, 06 May 2016 09:00:05 -0400 In-reply-to: <572C8ED4.4080404@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9?= =?utf-8?Q?ment?= Pit--Claudel on Fri, 6 May 2016 08:32:20 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:203643 Archived-At: > From: Clément Pit--Claudel > Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:32:20 -0400 > Cc: Emacs developers > > On 2016-05-06 08:24, Yuri Khan wrote: > > No, Gmail sends normal “Content-Type: multipart/alternative” > > messages, where the first alternative is text/plain and uses > > conventional “>” quoting, and the second alternative is text/html, > > optionally encoded as quoted-printable, with
quoting. > > The messages are valid w.r.t. RFC 2822 and RFC 2045, and the > > text/html payload is loosely well-formed HTML5. > > I don't think so. When I look at the source of Kaushal's messages, the '>' character is missing on the first line of each quoted section (see for example his message ). Thus what should be rendered as the following is actually as shown below in the message body: > > (Intended rendering, as suggested by the blockquotes in the HTML version:) > > > I suggest to change/add the docstring accordingly, because the new > > behavior is a radical change. > > > I could provide a 'patch' for that[1] > > That's great! > > > , but not sure about the structure of > > that patch > > (Actual rendering:) > > > > > I suggest to change/add the docstring accordingly, because the new > > behavior is a radical change. > > > > I could provide a 'patch' for that[1] > > > That's great! > > , but not sure about the structure of > > that patch > > Or is there an issue with Thunderbird's source rendering? Is this really relevant to Emacs? If not, could you take this discussion elsewhere? Thanks.