Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: please help me to have a look at this.

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 22:16, Bill Zhu wrote:
> Hi Jeff
> I saw that this bug had been closed.
> But I still wannt to say : I donn't wannt to just stop here. Because it
> really make users feel inconvenient. Thinking of if I were the user of
> evolution, if I meet a link in the mail which can be clicked, but there
> is no any response after I clicked it. I would think this software is
> terrible.

that's too bad. the current behaviour is correct. hacking it to work
brokenly is broken.

>  
> In my opinion, if it is not a link, why allow user to click it?

it *is* a link, it's just not a link that works.

>  and if
> we allow user to click it, we should not make it have no response.

ok, how about an error dialog?

>  but 
> not to ignore this, even if we donn't think it is a bug. 
> I think maybe it is better if we add something to handle the situation
> of "em-no-cid:". like cut off the "em-no-cid:" and pass it to
> gnome_url_show just when user click the link.

this would be broken. want proof? test out the html on a web browser.

here, I've done the hard part for you:

http://primates.ximian.com/~fejj/proof.html

does that relative link work? no? surprise surprise. web browsers don't
follow that link to http://www.ximian.com either. fancy that.


Jeff


> 
> 
> 
> 在2004年02月19日的09:10，Jeffrey Stedfast写道：
> > Actually, it turns out the 1.5 composer somehow generates the following
> > when doing "insert link"
> > 
> > <FONT COLOR="#bluish"><U>www.ximian.com</U></FONT>
> > 
> > discovered that while trying to create a mail to show this "problem"
> > earlier today.
> > 
> > Jeff
> > 
> > On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 20:02, Not Zed wrote:
> > > the only way i see this being fixed is for the gtkhtml editor to say 'oh
> > > the user REALLY meant to insert a http link' and make it a non-relative
> > > url.
> > > 
> > > the em-no-cid thing is just a side-effect, and it has to be there for
> > > html mails.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 12:04 +0800, Bill Zhu wrote:
> > > 
> > > > yeah,I have looked through the 1.5, the situation is almost the same.
> > > > 
> > > > On 二, 2004-02-17 at 19:52 +0100, Radek Doulík wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 11:26 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Radek: you seem to be discussing 1.5, while Bill seems to be talking
> > > > > > about 1.4
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > which branch is the bug actually in?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I guess the bug is in both branches (I checked 1.5.x) Only the protocol
> > > > > name changed? (cid: --> em-no-cid:)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Radek
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > evolution-hackers maillist  -  evolution-hackers lists ximian com
> > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > evolution-hackers maillist  -  evolution-hackers lists ximian com
> > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > evolution-hackers maillist  -  evolution-hackers lists ximian com
> > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
> > > 
> > 
>