On Thu, May 03 2012, Mark Walters wrote: > There are a couple of extra reasons why I like the show ones > separate. One is that I like to colour headerlines of matching messages to > highlight them, but in search mode that would highlight every > line. Secondly, I colour some things "negatively" in show mode: for > example I show excluded messages in grey. This negative colouring does > not make sense for search mode because I would only want to grey out > results where all messages were excluded not results where at least one > message is excluded. Of course we don't show entirely excluded threads > in search, but similar comments apply to say the "replied" tag: I could > show those in green (on the basis they are "dealt with") but I would not > want a thread coloured green just because I have replied to one message > in it. Ok, that makes sense. Maybe there could be switch to inherit colors, and then a way to set them independently as well. >>> BTW, I like how this clearly distinguishes tags and flags. I wonder >>> if we could transition to flags for some information that's current >>> shoe-horned into tags but actually represents immutable information >>> about a message (attachment, signed, and encrypted or so). >> >> Yes! As Austin probably remembers, we've discussed this before. I >> definitely agree that it makes sense to somehow distinguish "immutable" >> information that is a fundamental, unchanging/able property of the >> message, and it might be nice to look ahead to that here. > > In essence I agree: my only concern is can the user search for these > immutable things, and what syntax is used there. Well, nothing exists yet so we can define it as we wish, but I would say absolutely they should be searchable. That's an important part. They just wouldn't be changable, like tags are, since they represent immutable characteristics of the original message. I would suggest we use something like "prop:" (for "property"), e.g. "prop:signed", or "prop:attachment", etc. jamie.