Re: mailto: with Body part broken (was: Re: [Evolution] Three small questions about Evolution)

["Patrick O'Callaghan" <poc usb ve>]

On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 00:53 +0100, guenther wrote:
> > > I believe most people don't use it, cause they aren't used to it, forget
> > > about it or just don't care. I even have seen folks not using the
> > > Preformat style, after I explicitly pointed it out -- sending yet
> > > another mail with a note stating it is meant to be in a single line...
> >
> > My only experience with Preformat is when I use Send Link in Firefox to
> > send a page URL to someone. The URL comes up in Preformat style in the
> > message text, which is probably the only sensible default, but then I
> > have to turn it off if I'm adding a comment, which is *every single
> > time*.
> >
> > In other words, for me Preformat always gets in the way.
>
> This is a particular issue of its own. It's not Preformat itself getting
> in your way, but a poor default...
>
> I never used this before, so I just had a look. You are right, this link
> is on a line with Preformat style, which probably is a good idea for
> this line. Anyway, that's about it where the behavior is good. Anything
> else is broken.
>
> a) There is only this line. There should be at least one other line
> below the link where the use can enter some more text. This line should
> be Normal by default.

Right.

> b) There is no signature. Even though the Signature dropdown shows my
> default accounts signature name, there is none. Which is a bug.

Almost never use signatures so I hadn't noticed this.

> Specifically, this is a bug in the mailto: behavior of Evo. Apparently
> Firefox calls the default MUA with the common parameters, in this case
>
>   mailto:?Body=<link>
>
> Providing the Body part results in the broken behavior.

I can't say that Evo's behaviour is strictly wrong, since all it's doing
is what Firefox is telling it, i.e. create a message with a given Body.
The Evo developers could argue that adding an extra line in Normal
format is exceeding the spec. It's what I want in this case, but is it
always what I want? Neither can we ask Firefox to know about Evo's
formatting features.

One solution would be an extra Evo command line option to allow callers
to ask for strict/nonstrict inclusion of the body text.

poc