From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: BEGIN_SRC..END_SRC Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:52:10 +0900 Message-ID: <87y5ouqexh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <871umzrvfw.fsf@gmail.com> <87wr4rqg6g.fsf@gmail.com> <83d36j59gv.fsf@gnu.org> <87r4uz58e3.fsf@sec.modprobe.de> <83aa1n57p4.fsf@gnu.org> <5D17181ED92C4552AE8D4404DD035CA0@us.oracle.com> <87vck8sfyv.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <85obq05aua.fsf@iznogoud.viz> <87r4uvs4ae.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87397b15u7.fsf@gnu.org> <87y5p2nhc3.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87k40lsfuv.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87k40ljtay.fsf@gmx.com> <87fwb8sdeh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <877gwkrxsu.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1337053948 5583 80.91.229.3 (15 May 2012 03:52:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 03:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Rene@Kyllingstad.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 15 05:52:27 2012 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 1SU8oC-0000Ii-FC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 05:52:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51615 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SU8oB-0006zo-PB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 23:52:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SU8o8-0006zG-Qy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 23:52:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SU8o6-0001hA-JJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 23:52:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:35495) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SU8o6-0001gG-1x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 23:52:18 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt1.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE803FA0812; Tue, 15 May 2012 12:52:10 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 31AE61A4F12; Tue, 15 May 2012 12:52:10 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta31) "ginger" 5d3bb1100832 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.223 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:150486 Archived-At: Ren=C3=A9 Kyllingstad writes: > IMHO there is a crucial difference between "perfectly fine" and "to some > extent readable". It seems the MIME authors disagree. I rather doubt that they disagree with you. The MIME authors simply thought about it carefully and came to the conclusion that (1) subtypes of text are necessary for enhanced display, which is *very* desirable, while (2) implementation costs imply that not all MUAs will implement all subtypes, and (3) the dividing line between "perfectly fine" (and therefore not urgent to implement) subtypes and "to some extent readable" (and therefore of relatively high implementation priority) can and must be delegated to implementers, both of the types themselves (who are the ones who register the MIME content type, see below) and of the MUAs that interpret them. > > > Wouldn't it be better with "Content-type: text/plain/elisp" or some > > such? > > > > The "plain" is redundant, because all subtypes of text fall back to > > text/plain anyway. >=20 > Redundant seems a bit harsh to me. >=20 > I would prefer Gmail to treat text/rtf different from text/elisp: text/r= tf > should by default either be displayed with the markup interpreted or as a > download, whereas text/elisp should be displayed as text/plain. Sure, but that's up to Gmail; if Gmail doesn't do it your way, you can (a) live with it, (b) get Gmail to change it, (c) change to a different MUA that does it your way, or (d) write your own MUA that gets it right. The needed information is there; adding yet another level of subtype doesn't improve the situation. Note that you just can't win: if the designers of RTF agreed with you, they would have registered the content type as application/rtf rather than text/rtf. I gather that they disagree with you, and so if there *were* a text/plain/emacs-lisp, you'd also see text/plain/rtf, and there's no improvement. That is, you *can* get what you want under the standard as written, at some cost. And the way the standard is written, in any standard- conforming MUA, we both get something we can work with, even though we don't agree on optimal behavior (I want to see text/rtf, you don't).