R. David Murray writes:
> I meant "a text/plain root part *inside* a multipart/alternative", which
> is what you said, I just didn't understand it at first :) Although I
> wonder how many GUI MUAs do the fallback to multipart/mixed with just a
> normal text/plain root part, too. I would expe
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:01:42 -0400, "R. David Murray"
wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:56:36 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
> wrote:
> > R. David Murray writes:
> > > I can understand the structure Glen found in Applemail:
> > > a series of text/plain parts interspersed with image/jpg, with all
On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:56:36 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> R. David Murray writes:
> > I can understand the structure Glen found in Applemail:
> > a series of text/plain parts interspersed with image/jpg, with all parts
> > after the first being marked 'Contentent-Disposition: inline'.
R. David Murray writes:
> I'm still not understanding how the text/plain part *refers* to the
> related parts.
Like this: "Check out this picture of my dog!" Or this: "The terms of
the contract are found in the attached PDF. Please print it and sign
it, then return it by carrier pigeon (attac
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 15:52:59 -0700, Glenn Linderman
wrote:
> MUAs tend to be able to display what they produce themselves, but I have
> situations where they don't handle what other MUAs produce.
>
> One nice thing about this email6 toolkit might be the ability to
> produce, more easily than b
On 9/2/2013 2:40 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
I'm still not understanding how the text/plain part*refers* to the
related parts.
I don't think the text/plain part can refer to the related parts, but,
like you, am willing to be educated if there is a way; but while the
text/html may be able to if
On Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:06:53 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> > Glenn writes:
> > > Steve writes:
>
> >> OTOH, if the message is structured
> >>
> >> multipart/related
> >> multipart/alternative
> >> text/plain
> >> text/html
> >> ima
> Glenn writes:
> > Steve writes:
>> OTOH, if the message is structured
>>
>> multipart/related
>> multipart/alternative
>> text/plain
>> text/html
>> image/png
>> image/png
>>
>> the receiver can infer that the images are related t
On 9/1/2013 8:03 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
This is getting off-topic IMO; we should probably take this thread to
email-sig.
Probably, but you didn't :)
Glenn Linderman writes:
> I recall being surprised when first seeing messages generated by
> Apple Mail software, that are multipar
This is getting off-topic IMO; we should probably take this thread to
email-sig.
Glenn Linderman writes:
> I recall being surprised when first seeing messages generated by
> Apple Mail software, that are multipart/related, having a sequence
> of intermixed text/plain and image/jpeg parts. This
On 9/1/2013 3:10 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
This doesn't work, though, because you could (although you usually
won't) have more than one 'text/html' part in a single multipart.
I was traveling and your original message is still unread in my queue of
"things to look at later" :( I haven't caug
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:57:56 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> R. David Murray writes:
>
> > But I would certainly appreciate review from anyone so moved, since I
> > haven't gotten any yet.
>
> I'll try to make time for a serious (but obviously partial) review by
> Monday.
>
> I don't k
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 00:18:59 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> R. David Murray writes:
>
> > Full validation is something that is currently a "future
> > objective".
>
> I didn't mean it to be anything else. :-)
>
> > There's infrastructure to do it, but not all of the necessary knowled
R. David Murray writes:
> Full validation is something that is currently a "future
> objective".
I didn't mean it to be anything else. :-)
> There's infrastructure to do it, but not all of the necessary knowledge
> has been coded in yet.
Well, I assume you already know that there's no way t
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:57:56 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
wrote:
> R. David Murray writes:
>
> > But I would certainly appreciate review from anyone so moved, since I
> > haven't gotten any yet.
>
> I'll try to make time for a serious (but obviously partial) review by
> Monday.
Thanks.
> I
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:37:30 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On 31/08/13 15:21, R. David Murray wrote:
> > If you've read my blog (eg: on planet python), you will be aware that
> > I dedicated August to full time email package development.
> [...]
>
>
> The API looks really nice! Thank you for p
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> which may explain why Stephen Turnbull's reply contains mojibake.
Nah. It was already there, I just copied it. Could be my MUA's
fault, though; I've tweaked it for Japanese, and it doesn't handle odd
combinations well.
___
On 31/08/13 15:21, R. David Murray wrote:
If you've read my blog (eg: on planet python), you will be aware that
I dedicated August to full time email package development.
[...]
The API looks really nice! Thank you for putting this together.
A question comes to mind though:
All input strings
R. David Murray writes:
> But I would certainly appreciate review from anyone so moved, since I
> haven't gotten any yet.
I'll try to make time for a serious (but obviously partial) review by
Monday.
I don't know if this is "serious" bikeshedding, but I have a comment
or two on the example:
If you've read my blog (eg: on planet python), you will be aware that
I dedicated August to full time email package development. At the
beginning of the month I worked out a design proposal for the remaining
API additions to the email package, dealing with handling message bodies
in a more natural
20 matches
Mail list logo
