Re: Balsa UI changes - developer needed

Am 16.07.04 15:46 schrieb(en) Wookey:
When is 'inline' used? I see lots of mutlipart/alternative and

The idea is that either text or HTMl messages _are_ displayed
and you are told about other attachments in a obvious way, and other ways
displaying the same message in a very unobtrusive way. I can't beleive
making the software helpful to normal users is not permitted by the RFC,
even if it is, it's still sensible thing to do on this platform, but
not something we want in Balsa mainline.

Ah, sorry, no, I wasn't really clear there... I thought of a mail structure like the following one (structure view in 2.2, see below):

1     multipart/mixed
1.1     multipart/alternative
1.1.1     text/html
1.1.2     text/plain
1.2     image/jpeg

In this case, of course either the html *or* the plain part will be displayed - usually html, but if you select to prefer plain in the prefs, you'll see the plain one.

The point is that if the *image* (or any other attachment) has a disposition type "inline" (and this is what the rfc is talking about), it should be displayed automagically below the text part (balsa does this), but if it's "attachment", the user should select the part to display it (balsa does this, too). The only exception are application/*-signature parts, which are always displayed, breaking the rfc a little bit here, but it's more convenient IMHO.

Maybe we should just use 2.2.0 instead if it saves a whole load of
backporting. Are there any major drawbacks to this? We are using GTK2.4

No problem with this gtk version afaik - I use 2.4.3 here on a PowerMac running Linux perfectly with balsa. And of course there are *lots* improvements over 2.0! It created a new depency against GMime, though.

Apart from the menu, I added some code to 2.2 which resizes attached images to the message window automagically, btw. I guess this may be nice on your small screens, if someone attached a 2000x1600 jpeg...

The only problem *I* see is that crypto support in gmime and therefore in balsa 2.2 has a flaws: it sometimes declares a signature to be invalid when it is actually good, as gmime under some circumstances doesn't pass the message *really* verbatim into the crypto engine.

So, in short, if you don't want GnuPG support, try 2.2... Otherwise, I must admit that I'm not really sure. Hmmm...

This is true. It will always be possible to see the 'other form' of the
message, just not the way things are normally shown. And people who send

O.k., that is the current situation in balsa - selectable via the structure view in 2.0, and via the popup *or* the structure in 2.2. For my example above, the menu would look like

1.1.1 text/html
1.1.2 text/plain
1.2 image/jpeg (file Picture_of_Mom.jpg)

You'll also find the numbering in the structure view since 2.2 (see above).

OK, so making it easy to get at the structure view, or perhaps making it
default for signed mails would make sense? I'll pass this ino on to the
man to think about. Thanx.

Hmmm, in a way, the structure view is some kind of "expert tool", and is has been misused (if you like) to select attachments. IMHO, the 2.2 popup fills this gap.

Cheers, Albrecht.

P.S.: I got your message only directly - maybe you want to pass a copy to the Balsa list?

Albrecht Dreß  -  Johanna-Kirchner-Straße 13  -  D-53123 Bonn (Germany)
      Phone (+49) 228 6199571  -  mailto:albrecht dress arcor de

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]